• 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)

Mr._Bambu said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 fucky 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.
 
M3X_2.0 said:
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 fucky 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.
Click to expand...
Brother I hate to be the one to tell you this, we are policing the site. That's the point.

Topic bans are given to cease bad behavior and shittiness on formal matters relating to a verse since the individual is believed to be incapable of doing so without threat of action. Calculations are formal matters relating to a verse. In this specific circumstance they are even the matter that saw the individual topic banned in the first place, what is so hard to understand about that?

If someone who is more rational and level-headed than the topic banned person wants to present their case in a rational and level-headed way, I don't give a ****. The problem is not the information, it is the person giving it and the way with which they give it. That's the whole deal. If, however, they intend to carry on the crusade of poor behavior at the behest of the topic banned individual, then yeah, it's a problem.

Why is it that you seem to be arguing that the only acceptable way of dealing with this would be to block all information from being given? How is it that you feel that is the less totalitarian view? Our issue is that the guy is banned from speaking on the topic, he's in Troll Jail until he isn't.

Just think about it for a bit, homie.
 
CloverDragon03 said:
I saw Damage mentioning them so I thought they were a part of the discussion, my b
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Was never the focus of discussion but I didn't catch Damage bringing it up. I'd also be against extending it to sandboxes, users ought to be able to do shit recreationally. My issue is solely with formal proposals such as calculations. They can get someone else to manage it if its important.
 
I am not obligated to be patient with the person anymore, specially with her latest spiteful thread. @Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara

This thread is simply spiteful in nature alone with the title as well as comments, and this is not the first time:
This member has repeatedly demonstrated a pattern of deliberately creating threads with provocative and incendiary titles, while also displaying disrespectful and rude behavior towards others within the community. It is not an isolated incident, as this person has consistently engaged in such behavior in the past.

The staff members have been proactive in addressing this issue by warning or muting MG members who engage in similar passive provocation.
 
(before Glass or Lephy changed the name of thread"
Click to expand...
We didn't change it. It was Fuji herself.

Edit: For the record, I already warned Fuji on the thread and Glass also called her out on it. She has said she will make the effort to tone it down. As I've said multiple times in the past, I operate on a 3 strike system. However, if other staff feel different about it and more disciplinary action should be taken given her history with these revisions and verse, it is what it is.
 
Last edited:
Brother I hate to be the one to tell you this, we are policing the site. That's the point.
Click to expand...

Policing the site, and doing whatever this is? Two different things, this is beyond extreme.

Topic bans are given to cease bad behavior and shittiness on formal matters relating to a verse since the individual is believed to be incapable of doing so without threat of action.
Click to expand...

Yes, and? If someone was topic banned from Batman, and someone asked if they liked Batman on some different thread, on a blog, or whatever, are they not allowed to say "Yeah, I like him, he's cool", even though it's hurting nobody?

If someone was topic banned, in this case, for stone walling, why does that effect blogs? This is tantamount to actual thought policing, are they really not to even do secluded shit from everyone else, put their thoughts into a blog and more because they were an asshole? The very fact it's a blog and not the thread should be reason enough. As said, at that pint it'd be us interacting with him on the topic, not him interacting with us on the topic, or should we ban everyone on the wiki from talking to people who are topic banned to so they don't accidentally say something they're not allowed to?

Calculations are formal matters relating to a verse. In this specific circumstance they are even the matter that saw the individual topic banned in the first place, what is so hard to understand about that?
Click to expand...

What's so hard to understand about how that affects nothing at all? The only way they'd affect the verse is if a CGM let it, and at that point, it's us interacting with him, not him doing what he was banned for. They're only formal matters if someone who should know what they're doing in the first place says it's fine, or should we give them shit too for having an opinion that aligns with someone who apparently can't even think?

Also wasn't he banned for stone walling calcs? Not making them? At that point we just move past and ignore the calc if he refuses to step up and fix it, like we'd do with anyone else.

If someone who is more rational and level-headed than the topic banned person wants to present their case in a rational and level-headed way, I don't give a ****.The problem is not the information, it is the person giving it and the way with which they give it. That's the whole deal. If, however, they intend to carry on the crusade of poor behavior at the behest of the topic banned individual, then yeah, it's a problem.
Click to expand...

Yeah no, this is just an excuse, and honestly a contradictory one to some of your points. If the problem isn't the information then what's the issue? You said

"Making calculations demands adding to the discussion, offering your own interpretation of feats, etc. That is why I would disagree./Making the calc itself demands that you present your case."

This is literally you saying it should cover blogs BECAUSE of the information presented is their information and thus adding to the discussion, but, this would be the case no matter who presented it. which is to say, what the **** are you talking about?

Ignoring that, was it behavior like you said prior? Ok fair, but if they aren't participating, aka, what the ban exists for, then them posting blogs, sandboxes, whatever, should be fine? Saying it isn't is essentially thought policing because they might have an opinion. As long as they do not go out of their way to force these into topics and discussions, what's the issue?

Why is it that you seem to be arguing that the only acceptable way of dealing with this would be to block all information from being given? How is it that you feel that is the less totalitarian view? Our issue is that the guy is banned from speaking on the topic, he's in Troll Jail until he isn't.
Click to expand...

What? N I'm saying who gives a shit what he does as long as he isn't barging into threads he's banned from? Doing his own thing on the actual wiki isn't him barging in or whatever, at that point it's us going out of our way to interact with him, not the other way around, or should we ban everyone that wants to talk to him too?

Just think about it for a bit, homie.
Click to expand...

I did, this is bordering on radical behavior. Like if he's so bad just ignore him? Otherwise as long as he's keeping to himself about this, and other lads just so happen to choose to interact, then that's on them.

The only way i'd say a blog ban is needed, is if they so bad they should be banned flat-out, not just from a topic.

We're not arguing sandboxes, my man.
Click to expand...

Why not? What's the difference between a blog and a sandbox? He's still talking about it, he could make an identical sandbox and blog, same contents, but one's ok but one isn't? That's arbitrary as ****. If he put a calc in a sandbox, which many do, why's that different than a calc in a blog? He's still presenting the calc is he not? Putting that info out, adding to the discussion as you said by making his interpretation of a feat visible? If blogs aren't ok, sandboxes can't be either.
 
I did in fact change the thread name voluntarily, though @Theglassman12 did suggest it over Discord.

Also, I do not create thread titles with the intent to upset people. I just do it because sometimes I like making jokes, which I frequently do for pretty much every other verse (I have a Touhou thread in progress that deliberately misspelled two characters' names as a joke, for example).

Also, I said you were detailing because you deliberately ignored several of my posts and cropped the full context. While I admit I was overly aggressive in places, it's mostly in response to the way you stonewall threads.

This will be my only post here.
 
ImmortalDread said:
I am not obligated to be patient with the person anymore, specially with her latest spiteful thread. @Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara

This thread is simply spiteful in nature alone with the title as well as comments, and this is not the first time:
Click to expand...
These offenses (if they can even be called that) seem extremely unserious imho, but I’d be fine with telling them to tone it down.
 
@Antvasima should be banned from participating in this thread https://vsbattles.com/threads/dc-co...pgrade-discussion-part-2.152269/#post-5860401
Throughout the entire thing, he's done nothing productive whatsoever, repeatedly belittled and stonewalled users, showed clear personal bias and stonewalling and an absolute lack of even attempting to grasp the opposing side.
For his sake and others, he should not have access to this thread as in this and all the preceding ones he's shown no contribution whatsoever
 
Da_Lunge_Fish said:
@Antvasima should be banned from participating in this thread https://vsbattles.com/threads/dc-co...pgrade-discussion-part-2.152269/#post-5860401
Throughout the entire thing, he's done nothing productive whatsoever, repeatedly belittled and stonewalled users, showed clear personal bias and stonewalling and an absolute lack of even attempting to grasp the opposing side.
For his sake and others, he should not have access to this thread as in this and all the preceding ones he's shown no contribution whatsoever
Click to expand...
This sort of thing goes directly to HR.
 
Da_Lunge_Fish said:
@Antvasima should be banned from participating in this thread https://vsbattles.com/threads/dc-co...pgrade-discussion-part-2.152269/#post-5860401
Throughout the entire thing, he's done nothing productive whatsoever, repeatedly belittled and stonewalled users, showed clear personal bias and stonewalling and an absolute lack of even attempting to grasp the opposing side.
For his sake and others, he should not have access to this thread as in this and all the preceding ones he's shown no contribution whatsoever
Click to expand...
There's human resources for that
 
LephyrTheRevanchist said:
We didn't change it. It was Fuji herself.

Edit: For the record, I already warned Fuji on the thread and Glass also called her out on it. She has said she will make the effort to tone it down. As I've said multiple times in the past, I operate on a 3 strike system. However, if other staff feel different about it and more disciplinary action should be taken given her history with these revisions and verse, it is what it is.
Click to expand...
Let's say, you operate on 3 strike system (which you actually always do)

She had many reports' history, is this going to reach 3 or not? Because at this point, and I am being entirely serious, if Elde or any MG member has done the same, he would be chat banned for months without even hesitation. (sorry for mentioning your name, but you are the best example)
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
Also, I do not create thread titles with the intent to upset people. I just do it because sometimes I like making jokes, which I frequently do for pretty much every other verse (I have a Touhou thread in progress that deliberately misspelled two characters' names as a joke, for example).
Click to expand...
Joke? After all the reports and MG heated discussions and your entire defense is “joke”.

No, it is not. It is provacable and incendiary title, which you intentionally miss typed, to invite the community to be toxic towards you.
 
Yes, and? If someone was topic banned from Batman, and someone asked if they liked Batman on some different thread, on a blog, or whatever, are they not allowed to say "Yeah, I like him, he's cool", even though it's hurting nobody?
Click to expand...
This is incredibly different than calculating the force of Batman's explosion and saying "I think this should scale to everyone else" in a calc, and you know that.

If someone was topic banned, in this case, for stone walling, why does that effect blogs? This is tantamount to actual thought policing, are they really not to even do secluded shit from everyone else, put their thoughts into a blog and more because they were an asshole? The very fact it's a blog and not the thread should be reason enough. As said, at that pint it'd be us interacting with him on the topic, not him interacting with us on the topic, or should we ban everyone on the wiki from talking to people who are topic banned to so they don't accidentally say something they're not allowed to?
Click to expand...
They were topic banned for stone walling on the ******* blogs lol. Calculation blogs are functionally proposals for stat changes. It's absurd to paint this as "thought policing" lol. Like the two aren't even remotely close, in no way is saying "You, specifically, cannot be the one to publish this calc, because you are problematic in handling it and are currently topic banned" equal to "You cannot think X or Y way". I can't comprehend why you insist on poisoning the well like this. I've even stated that I don't care if the exact same calc gets sent to someone else in private and published- the problem is that this specific user is disbarred from doing it because they cannot act like a damn adult.

Yeah no, this is just an excuse, and honestly a contradictory one to some of your points. If the problem isn't the information then what's the issue? You said

"Making calculations demands adding to the discussion, offering your own interpretation of feats, etc. That is why I would disagree./Making the calc itself demands that you present your case."

This is literally you saying it should cover blogs BECAUSE of the information presented is their information and thus adding to the discussion, but, this would be the case no matter who presented it. which is to say, what the **** are you talking about?

Ignoring that, was it behavior like you said prior? Ok fair, but if they aren't participating, aka, what the ban exists for, then them posting blogs, sandboxes, whatever, should be fine? Saying it isn't is essentially thought policing because they might have an opinion. As long as they do not go out of their way to force these into topics and discussions, what's the issue?
Click to expand...
I will reiterate, in plain terms, so everyone can understand:

The problem is the user. The information can be given to anyone else, and they can upload it. As long as they are not acting as poorly as the user, then I don't really care, personally. Blogs in general are fine. Calculations are not. The topic ban prevents them from interacting with a topic in which they have shown themselves to behave poorly. If another person can present their blog without behaving poorly, then I don't have a problem with it.

I really, really want you to point out the point at which that becomes "thought-policing" "dictatorship" shit, since I can't find it, and I'm getting the impression that the buzzwords are thrown in to demonize a fairly rational suggestion- that prisoners remain in prison.

What? N I'm saying who gives a shit what he does as long as he isn't barging into threads he's banned from? Doing his own thing on the actual wiki isn't him barging in or whatever, at that point it's us going out of our way to interact with him, not the other way around, or should we ban everyone that wants to talk to him too?
Click to expand...
Him presenting calculations and arguing on them is literally no different from arguing on the wiki lmao

I did, this is bordering on radical behavior. Like if he's so bad just ignore him? Otherwise as long as he's keeping to himself about this, and other lads just so happen to choose to interact, then that's on them.

The only way i'd say a blog ban is needed, is if they so bad they should be banned flat-out, not just from a topic.
Click to expand...
Publishing a calculation and asking for evaluations is absolutely not "keeping to himself", are you even listening to yourself?

Why not? What's the difference between a blog and a sandbox? He's still talking about it, he could make an identical sandbox and blog, same contents, but one's ok but one isn't? That's arbitrary as ****. If he put a calc in a sandbox, which many do, why's that different than a calc in a blog? He's still presenting the calc is he not? Putting that info out, adding to the discussion as you said by making his interpretation of a feat visible? If blogs aren't ok, sandboxes can't be either.
Click to expand...
When's the last time you were asked to evaluate a sandbox? Could you for a moment just cut the bullshit?

Y'know what, actually, this is an insanely unhinged take, so I'm going to appeal to the rules. With all due respect M3X, and you ought to know that at least when it comes to calculations, I do respect you: your insight is not wanted, and at the moment it is only going to cause trouble, which I suspect is at least partially intended. You've given your thoughts on the topic but you are not evaluating staff, so you can stop.
 
ImmortalDread said:
Let's say, you operate on 3 strike system (which you actually always do)

She had many reports' history, is this going to reach 3 or not? Because at this point, and I am being entirely serious, if Elde or any MG member has done the same, he would be chat banned for months without even hesitation. (sorry for mentioning your name, but you are the best example)
Click to expand...
I gave my conclusion on the thread itself. I agree with a warning (and gave it). I leave the rest to my peers.
 
ImmortalDread said:
Joke? After all the reports and MG heated discussions and your entire defense is “joke”.

No, it is not. It is provacable and incendiary title, which you intentionally miss typed, to invite the community to be toxic towards you.
Click to expand...
Since a warning was already given and she said she'd tone it down I don't think anything else needs to be done on the matter. Jokingly misspelling a character's name doesn't seem like it'd warrant anything other than a slap on the wrist, if that.
 
Maverick_Zero_X said:
Since a warning was already given and she said she'd tone it down I don't think anything else needs to be done on the matter. Jokingly misspelling a character's name doesn't seem like it'd warrant anything other than a slap on the wrist, if that.
Click to expand...
I do agree. Fujiwara's streak of behavior is noted but at present this doesn't demand a major reaction. I will be watching the thread to try to ensure peace- there are other staff also present, I think we'll be fine.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
Y'know what, actually, this is an insanely unhinged take, so I'm going to appeal to the rules. With all due respect M3X, and you ought to know that at least when it comes to calculations, I do respect you: your insight is not wanted, and at the moment it is only going to cause trouble, which I suspect is at least partially intended. You've given your thoughts on the topic but you are not evaluating staff, so you can stop.
Click to expand...
I ain't even gonna lie, it's a bad look for you to end off by basically saying "I'm evaluating staff. You're not. Stop talking"
 
I will not push any longer, but I would like to note that there should be somehow an “end” to this smaller (some of them were significant) infractions streak.

Also, to @Maverick_Zero_X

I understand that one might perceive this title as a joke when looking at it from an outsider's point of view. However, it is important to note that within the community, particularly among those directly involved, these remarks are not regarded as mere jokes. Instead, they are seen as inflammatory (to be precise “incendiary”) titles due to the controversial position and history of the person in question.
 
Last edited:
CloverDragon03 said:
I ain't even gonna lie, it's a bad look for you to end off by basically saying "I'm evaluating staff. You're not. Stop talking"
Click to expand...
When someone is calling topic bans "thought policing", they are no longer discussing in good faith. It is directly against the rules for non-evaluating staff to actually take part in discussions they are not related to, but normally it is allowed as long as they aren't doing active harm. When conspiracy theories enter the fray, I'm calling that active harm.

I'm aware I look like a damn boogeyman, but I've been here for about seven years now, and everyone has thought me an asshole for enforcing basic rules before. It's nothing new, man.
 
Last edited:
Maverick_Zero_X said:
Since a warning was already given and she said she'd tone it down I don't think anything else needs to be done on the matter. Jokingly misspelling a character's name doesn't seem like it'd warrant anything other than a slap on the wrist, if that.
Click to expand...
These offenses (if they can even be called that) seem extremely unserious imho, but I’d be fine with telling them to tone it down.
Click to expand...
If I may ask; if I told people to cope in thread, this is acceptable and un-serious offense?

Just to take notes for future purposes, so people that views this thread know if it was harmless comment or not, since people missed my entire report and focused on the title (which is my fault, I gave it insignificantly more importance)
 
ImmortalDread said:
If I may ask; if I told people to cope in thread, this is acceptable and un-serious offense?

Just to take notes for future purposes, so people that views this thread know if it was harmless comment or not, since people missed my entire report and focused on the title (which is my fault, I gave it insignificantly more importance)
Click to expand...
By itself? Means nothing. The problem arises when both users have repeated history of provoking and reporting each other.
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
I've already been warned. I'm aware I was being overly aggressive, and I apologize for that, but I don't think there's a need to keep pushing for something greater when the staff here have already given their opinion. That's all.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

I understand you're trying to establish a precedent case, Dread, but you should drop it now. Two admins agreed with a warning. Leave it at that.
 
Damage3245 said:
I agree. Topic bans should not extend to sandboxes or blog posts.
Click to expand...
Sandboxes, heck no. Or even editing their own user pages and people can talk about what they want on message walls so as long as they aren't harassing anyone or publicly spewing drama, or saying anything that violates TOS. But as for blog posts, I feel that's case by case. Maybe people can make blogs, but they cannot advertise them or they can't be advertised by proxies on any content revisions or wiki management threads. Though I still think it's frowned upon to be making some bad faith calculations to wank/downplay various verses.
 
Last edited:
M3X_2.0 said:
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.
Click to expand...
He could send other people messages he wants to post in CRTs off-site, and they could repost them in threads, which we've traditionally considered fine (as long as it's not done too often); the other person has to vet it before it's posted, and if they don't, they'll be on the line for any rule violations committed.

Plus, this rule violation was noticed because he was asking for those calcs to be evaluated in the calc evals thread. That is doing something more with them.
M3X_2.0 said:
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.
Click to expand...
If they can just keep making blogs for the verse, then they aren't ******* off from the verse for a bit; they're doing exactly what they were previously, but have to interact with one relevant type of thread in a more indirect way.

If they were personal blogs that had no impact on the wiki at large, sure, but these are calcs intended for use on the verse, that he asked to be evaluated.

And as mentioned before, the reasons are quite tightly linked. He was topic banned for stonewalling discussions about calcs. It's still to think he wouldn't do that in calc comments, since he's already done that, as the examples I posted above demonstrated.
M3X_2.0 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Or, as I've shown happening multiple times, they don't get accepted, and he stonewalls discussions about it, the exact thing he got topic banned for.
M3X_2.0 said:
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 fucky 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,
Click to expand...
You could make the same argument for his behaviour in threads. But we decided to topic ban instead, why is bickering in calcs just something we should ignore, but bickering in threads is something that should lead to a topic ban?
M3X_2.0 said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's not what we did with Butters; we blanket removed all of his calcs from all verses, because they were consistently unreliable, including ones that CGMs agreed with. That's why you can see this notice on his calcs
Note: In accordance with Rule Violations Report Thread 75, the calculations of this user are not to be used. Wokistan (talk) 14:54, September 3, 2020 (UTC)
Click to expand...
M3X_2.0 said:
He's still talking about it, he could make an identical sandbox and blog, same contents, but one's ok but one isn't? That's arbitrary as ****. If he put a calc in a sandbox, which many do, why's that different than a calc in a blog?
Click to expand...
Because it can't be evaluated, and he couldn't ask for it to be evaluated, like he did with multiple of his own calcs after he was topic banned.
Mr._Bambu said:
Y'know what, actually, this is an insanely unhinged take, so I'm going to appeal to the rules. With all due respect M3X, and you ought to know that at least when it comes to calculations, I do respect you: your insight is not wanted, and at the moment it is only going to cause trouble, which I suspect is at least partially intended. You've given your thoughts on the topic but you are not evaluating staff, so you can stop.
Click to expand...
Is that even true for the RVT? Last I heard I was told that "evaluation rights" only apply to CRTs, not staff only threads.
 
Last edited:
Look, the issue here doesn't seem to be that Vapourrrrr is not allowed to make calculation blogs for Tokyo Revengers, and that other members can then suggest that they are evaluated, it is that he has been arguing extensively in them in a very unreasonable manner despite being topic-banned from the verse for this very reason. Bambu is not remotely being tyrannical for pointing that out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
9 10 11
Replies
419
Views
27K
Accelerated_Evolution
Accelerated_Evolution
Mr. Bambu
Slight Adjustment to Rules Regarding Original Works
Replies
37
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Catzlaflame
  • Locked
Regarding the Rule Violations Report Thread
2
Replies
71
Views
5K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
H3110l12345I20
IRL Paper has a profile.
Replies
28
Views
1K
JustANormalLemon
JustANormalLemon
DarkGrath
  • Locked
Proposal for Off-Site Rules Revision
2 3
Replies
93
Views
9K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top