- 165,138
- 72,063
- Thread starter
- #20,881
I did not get any automatic overlaps with other accounts here, and they do not seem to use a VPN given how frequently they used the same IP address.
-
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)
- Thread starter Antvasima
- Start date
- 18,393
- 14,311
I believe the matter at hand may not meet the criteria for an official report in the RvR context. However, it is worth noting the issue raised in the provided link, as it carries some significance.
In a previous discussion initiated by @Planck69, both myself and @Georredannea15 were requested to present our viewpoints in a concise manner, limited to a single post. I complied with this request by refraining from addressing other individuals directly and instead shared my own perspectives in a single post. However, @Georredannea15 did not adhere to Planck's instructions and chose to respond to my points, thereby gaining an advantage over me, as my arguments were specifically "counter-addressed."
This situation places me at a disadvantage, which I perceive as unfair since I am no longer allowed to address back. In following Planck's directive, I purposely refrained from engaging in back-and-forth arguments until someone from the supporters of God of War adopted a similar approach. If our intention is to foster a thoughtful discussion while ensuring fairness for all participants, this type of comment can be seen as misleading.
To rectify this issue, it is suggested that both parties be granted permission to engage in a back-and-forth exchange or that a single post be designated to avoid the impression of favoritism.
Once again, it is important to note that this report is not directed towards any specific individual, but I do believe there is a flaw in the current approach.
In a previous discussion initiated by @Planck69, both myself and @Georredannea15 were requested to present our viewpoints in a concise manner, limited to a single post. I complied with this request by refraining from addressing other individuals directly and instead shared my own perspectives in a single post. However, @Georredannea15 did not adhere to Planck's instructions and chose to respond to my points, thereby gaining an advantage over me, as my arguments were specifically "counter-addressed."
This situation places me at a disadvantage, which I perceive as unfair since I am no longer allowed to address back. In following Planck's directive, I purposely refrained from engaging in back-and-forth arguments until someone from the supporters of God of War adopted a similar approach. If our intention is to foster a thoughtful discussion while ensuring fairness for all participants, this type of comment can be seen as misleading.
To rectify this issue, it is suggested that both parties be granted permission to engage in a back-and-forth exchange or that a single post be designated to avoid the impression of favoritism.
Once again, it is important to note that this report is not directed towards any specific individual, but I do believe there is a flaw in the current approach.
- 32,793
- 37,973
Bruh, you could've just asked Planck to deal with this or asked him for permission again to post one more comment in response, or make Georr not respond to your post. What is the purpose of this report to begin with?
- 17,764
- 17,258
@ImmortalDread
As said above, you could've just asked me to deal with the issue and get him to cut down the responses to you on his post or asked for one more permission to make a final rebuttal.
As it is, this seems to be an issue with the standard in general, in which case it'd need an actual thread to address and not a nebulous report here.
As said above, you could've just asked me to deal with the issue and get him to cut down the responses to you on his post or asked for one more permission to make a final rebuttal.
As it is, this seems to be an issue with the standard in general, in which case it'd need an actual thread to address and not a nebulous report here.
- 18,393
- 14,311
The current situation does not pertain to any personal responsibility on my part. Rather, it concerns the inequitable treatment exhibited by supporters and staff members that has led to this member's appointment.
The directive put forth by Planck was explicit in its aim to prevent prolonged debates, not to facilitate them. I perceive it as unjust to merely disregard this directive.
My intention here is not to instigate conflict (nor to report any relevant members), but rather to highlight that I initially engaged in this discussion with respect and fairness, only to find myself unfairly disadvantaged by other supporters.
My issue is @KLOL506 liking the post, which deems acceptable for him. I considered asking you for an additional permission, but this simply goes against the notion of making the thread staff-only, is to avoid back and forth.
I assume, I added an exception to this type of staff threads, but the idea got rejected.
- 32,793
- 37,973
You literally could've asked Planck to allow you to comment once more, like seriously, stop making a mountain out of a molehill.
I can't give you permission because apparently calc group members can't do that anymore. Planck was literally there. He has higher power than me. You could've just asked him on his wall.
Also what, I can't like posts I find acceptable everywhere else now?
- 17,764
- 17,258
It is entirely possible, and likely the case that he just agrees with Georredannea15's analysis about the thread and didn't take the issue of into account. I hardly take a kudos as endorsing back-and-forth or anything of the sort.
Regardless, this is honestly a nothing burger issue. Policy isn't changed on the RvR and the incident on the thread itself could've been resolved with a few posts to me or another moderator.
- 18,393
- 14,311
^^
I suppose; But again, if you don't mind, tell Georr to remove his post without addressing my points or simply turn it back to content revision if you want to remain in fairness.
- 32,793
- 37,973
Like I said, I can't give permissions anymore because CGMs lost that privilege
Should've just asked Planck to do that in the very beginning.
There will be no back-and-forth going on here anymore if the previous thread is anything to go by. You should've just asked Planck for permission to make one final rebuttal and that should've been the end of it.
- 32,793
- 37,973
For the record, I viewed Georr's comment as merely his own post and his side of the argument considering what was discussed, and Tanin and Gilver have yet to formulate their counter-arguments as well, though I will note down that they will also get only one chance to comment their own thoughts on the matter without having to respond to yours to begin with.
Georredannea15
He/Him- 4,216
- 2,741
What he said was almost the same as what was discussed in previous revisions, so I said that these had been discussed before and still exercised my right to write a counter-argument. I have no idea why he objected to this.
Also, this is not just my arguments, yes, I may have written extensively and long, but there are more Planck and Gilver's arguments as well.
- 18,393
- 14,311
Who is he? Why are you misgendering me in this thread? Also, no you got absolutely no right to write a counter-argument while @Planck69 specifically disallowed this to avoid back and forth argument.
So you intentionally broke staff's member request as you admitted. Alright, so I will be reporting you.
Someone else except those two GoW's staff member to evaluate this report since the user above admitted for not listening to a staff member's request.
So you intentionally broke staff's member request as you admitted. Alright, so I will be reporting you.
Someone else except those two GoW's staff member to evaluate this report since the user above admitted for not listening to a staff member's request.
Georredannea15
He/Him- 4,216
- 2,741
Ehhh... no. Each of us had only one right to write, and we wrote it.
Georredannea15
He/Him- 4,216
- 2,741
Okay.
- 4,151
- 4,864
User contributions for Puteri manis | VS Battles Wiki | Fandom
vsbattles.fandom.com
This guy has been vandalizing pages such as this.
Naruto Uzumaki (Storm Series)
Naruto Uzumaki is the main protagonist of the Naruto: Ultimate Ninja Storm series and shinobi of Konohagakure's Uzumaki clan. He became the jinchūriki of the Nine-Tails on the day of his birth — a fate that caused him to be shunned by most of Konoha throughout his childhood. After joining Team...
vsbattles.fandom.com
- 18,393
- 14,311
Additionally, Georr posted two comments in a staff thread that has no permission from any staff member:
- comment #1
- comment #2 (the link does not work as it is deleted)
Georredannea15
He/Him- 4,216
- 2,741
I guess I made 2 and one got deleted.
- 32,793
- 37,973
I will clarify that the counter-argument response to Dread was deleted and reposted with explicit mention that it was not targeted at Ant, but at OP, but I do agree there are still some remnants we could do without.
Other than that, Georr's first comment after this was merely to show Deagonx where the counter-arguments were made (Which really doesn't contribute any more new points to the OP, it only shows where the arguments are located), the second comment after that made in a response to Georr was deleted at my request.
Other than that, Georr's first comment after this was merely to show Deagonx where the counter-arguments were made (Which really doesn't contribute any more new points to the OP, it only shows where the arguments are located), the second comment after that made in a response to Georr was deleted at my request.
- 165,138
- 72,063
- Thread starter
- #20,904
Therefir and I handled it.User contributions for Puteri manis | VS Battles Wiki | Fandom
This guy has been vandalizing pages such as this.
Naruto Uzumaki (Storm Series)
Naruto Uzumaki is the main protagonist of the Naruto: Ultimate Ninja Storm series and shinobi of Konohagakure's Uzumaki clan. He became the jinchūriki of the Nine-Tails on the day of his birth — a fate that caused him to be shunned by most of Konoha throughout his childhood. After joining Team...
- 165,138
- 72,063
- Thread starter
- #20,905
Okay. A second comment is fine for Dread then.
Georredannea15
He/Him- 4,216
- 2,741
I want to report @ImmortalDread and @Deagonx here. This is because DeagonX never warned Dread to get permission from Planck to post comments, but even though I got permission from Planck for this staff thread, he repeatedly deleted my comments and threaded me without any community group decision.
He said he disagreed with my permission and deleted my comments and banned me from the thread without any community decision but made no warnings against him even though he was in the same situation at Dread.
This is clearly biased and an abuse of power.
He said he disagreed with my permission and deleted my comments and banned me from the thread without any community decision but made no warnings against him even though he was in the same situation at Dread.
This is clearly biased and an abuse of power.
- 7,218
- 13,043
You commented the same thing three times, despite me deleting it and telling you not to each time, that is why I threadbanned you. Prior to that, you asked me for permission to comment on the thread, and I said no, because we had agreed here earlier that each you and Dread would get a certain number of comments and then stop, and then you claim to have gotten it from Planck, but that's more or less besides the point because thread mods are only supposed to authorize single substantive comments, not an indefinite amount of comments.
That said, however, my conduct should be brought up with HR if you have concerns, not the RVR. This is not the venue for allegations of staff misconduct.
That said, however, my conduct should be brought up with HR if you have concerns, not the RVR. This is not the venue for allegations of staff misconduct.
- 18,393
- 14,311
You never added in your post that you get permission from Planck. Besides, the thread moderator can thread ban you without any collective community decision, if he saw you constantly violating the staff thread's guidelines which you indeed did by sending it three times in a row.
As for my comments; I never commented without any staff approval – one I got from Ant and from Planck, and I have stated in both of my posts to prevent such cases. As for “case similarity” argument – I got quoted/tagged twice in that thread, which at some point, clarification from my side deemed to be necessary, which is the reason I asked for permission to clarify.
While you were replying to an admin who simply merely expressed his opinion. It was not deemed as a necessary comment.
Also, other fact;
Again, I am being reported for?
As for my comments; I never commented without any staff approval – one I got from Ant and from Planck, and I have stated in both of my posts to prevent such cases. As for “case similarity” argument – I got quoted/tagged twice in that thread, which at some point, clarification from my side deemed to be necessary, which is the reason I asked for permission to clarify.
While you were replying to an admin who simply merely expressed his opinion. It was not deemed as a necessary comment.
Also, other fact;
You also sent two other unauthorized comments which you got from no staff members, so I think the decision @Deagonx made is fair.
Again, I am being reported for?
Last edited:
- 15,858
- 8,945
Follow up, he's still editing pages without CRTs. I say ban his ass for a month.
- 3,229
- 7,898
- 165,138
- 72,063
- Thread starter
- #20,915
I am fine with if you do so then.
Excellence616
He/Him- 5,322
- 3,651
Giannysmag
He/Him- 3,010
- 5,145
Dragonite007
He/Him- 6,137
- 2,706
Excellence616
He/Him- 5,322
- 3,651
The guy should be warned.
Dragonite007
He/Him- 6,137
- 2,706
I undid the downgrade in Lubu and Thor
Similar threads
