• 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)

Deagonx said:
I'm not sure what the best course of action is, but I can definitely speak to the fact that he's rather aggressive and unwilling to accept that other people disagree with him. He's certainly not unique in that regard, and I've become accustomed to that sort of stubbornness in CRTs, but he has essentially declared repeatedly that myself and Damage aren't making valid arguments, and we're biased, et cetera. This same upgrade was rejected back in March and he's attempting it again.

I will be the first to point out that I am not the ultimate arbiter of truth or reasonability, I am just a guy that was given a staff position and thus have voting rights, but it is problematic to treat other people's perspectives as invalid or to propose that the reason your upgrade keeps failing is because the entire staff is biased against your verse.

Sorry, I am just not persuaded by the evidence, I thought the counter-arguments were more sound. I don't believe that should be met with ridicule, exasperation, accusations, or other such behavior. If he has a history of this (I wasn't aware of him prior to this thread) then I think it is worth considering another ban. But I am not familiar with the full extent of his problems.
Click to expand...
You ignored the arguments of multiple people, to which i literally said i don't really care about your opinion when you refuse to address any previous arguments.
I don't see anything wrong with my statement.
Literally multiple people addressed the fact that you didn't provide any solid arguments and are simply disagreeing based on nothing.
I also called you biased yes, that's correct to which i showed you screenshots of your own comments,

you asked for a very specific statement of "Yhwach can negate Aizen's regen"
Which doesn't exist, and the next thing you do is saying "Aizen's regen has limits"
Which was never stated, while using the exact same statement that's provided.
I then asked you the exact same question you asked before of where exactly it was stated that his regen was limited.

I haven't been aggressive at all, maybe you could say im stubborn sure.
But of course im going to be stubborn when the opposing side is just as stubborn by saying the same stuff that has already been addressed over and over again.
I will treat your opinion as invalid if you don't even bother to address the actual arguments, and have pretty much ignored everything in the thread.

But you're acting as if my opinion actually matters whether i say that i find your opinion invalid or not.
I'd be fine with if you actually addressed what was being said.

I was simply waiting for more staff input as 2 disagrees doesn't automatically mean that it's the end of the thread.
 
If you read through the thread and through the arguments that were made in the thread, and think that i deserve to be banned for that, then by my guest tbh.
 
I'm not necessarily advocating a ban, at least not before hearing from others first, but I do think you're still acting unnecessarily rude, which isn't great after just returning from a ban for the same stuff.
 
Being honest, I got curious and read through literally the entire thread. I wouldn’t advocate for a ban, especially seeing that Hellscream seems to genuinely feel that his arguments are just outright being ignored (which, being honest, it kind of appears that way in the latter part of the thread)

A strict warning should be appropriate here, given his poor behavior, but I don’t think it’s to the point of ban-worthy.
 
CloverDragon03 said:
Being honest, I got curious and read through literally the entire thread. I wouldn’t advocate for a ban, especially seeing that Hellscream seems to genuinely feel that his arguments are just outright being ignored (which, being honest, it kind of appears that way in the latter part of the thread)

A strict warning should be appropriate here, given his poor behavior, but I don’t think it’s to the point of ban-worthy.
Click to expand...
Agreed here
 
To whom it may concern, a third mod has now disagreed with the upgrade and I have closed the thread. I'm not particularly interested in banning him, and I am not the one who reached out to Bambu, but he needs to learn to accept that people are not always going to agree with him, and shouldn't become belligerent or accuse people of bias. I will address two things.
Hellscream said:
you asked for a very specific statement of "Yhwach can negate Aizen's regen"
Which doesn't exist, and the next thing you do is saying "Aizen's regen has limits"
Which was never stated, while using the exact same statement that's provided.
I then asked you the exact same question you asked before of where exactly it was stated that his regen was limited.
Click to expand...

First, the crucial difference is that Eldemade arrived in the thread and stated, directly, that in the new anime (that we are treating as the primary canon) Yhwach stated he could negate Aizen's regeneration. I asked for that specific statement because I was told that it exists. I was not arbitrarily or randomly demanding an explicit statement, I was asking for proof of what was claimed (that Yhwach said he could negate the regeneration). Yhwach didn't say this, in any capacity.

What I said was that Yhwach claimed killing Aizen would take too long, which means it isn't impossible but would simply take a very long time. I pointed out this has implications on the nature of Aizen's ability. Very different situations.

Hellscream said:
I will treat your opinion as invalid if you don't even bother to address the actual arguments, and have pretty much ignored everything in the thread.
Click to expand...
This is the most important part, so please focus on this as this is the point that will hopefully prevent you from being in the RVR again. No matter how right you may feel you are, or how right you may even be, you simply aren't in a position to demand that people adhere to your specific idea of debating convention. Neither am I! I have pursued CRTs in which I felt extremely justified, and felt as though the detractors were not adequately addressing the heart of the matter. Regardless, that is not a valid reason to publicly announce that their opinion is invalid, that you don't care what they think, etc. etc.

That type of hostility, aggression, et cetera, is not justified by your belief (valid or not) that your opponents have not satisfactorily addressed your argument but have continued to disagree regardless. If you do that, you're going to end up getting reported, so you should stop doing that.
 
Reporting @Kirinator07 for multiple edits performed to SCP profiles without the creation of a correlating CRT, along with the creation of (to my knowledge) at least one profile that breaks our standards, examples of this being:
Multiple changes to 096's page that start from this point
Multiple changes to 0001's page that start from this point
Multiple changes to 3930's page that start from this point
Multiple changes to 106's page that start from this point
Created this profile which violates our cross-scaling rules in the linked key
And many more changes that have taken place that I feel not the need to list as this should get the point across, but many more changes can be seen in his edit history.
Of note is that Kirinator has been warned for such activity multiple times in the past, and while some of these edits have taken place before said warning, these edits have also extended far past the point those warnings have been given along with having not been reverted, along with those warnings being given for changes related to the stats of the character rather than the P&A as can be seen here.
Other members of the SCP revisions team can likely also bring up issues with Kirinator if they see it necessary.
 
Antvasima said:
I reverted the vandal's edits and gave them a warning message.

vsbattles.fandom.com

A8612152

vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com
Click to expand...
They did not listen to the message and changed this page's statistics

The message they put for the reason for their changes (if it helps to add context) was: Revision due to questionable claims and scaling. Clean up some phrases.

Edit: I've also reverted the changes
 
I don't ask for you to agree with me.
The only thing i asked for was a counter argument, and for the points that were made in the thread to be addressed, that's all.
But if i have to repeat the exact same thing over and over and over without it even being so much as read then how exactly do you expect me to respect your opinion when you don't even care enough to address what's being said in the thread?

Im fine with people not agreeing, that's part of debating, i just expect that people actually refute and try to argue against what's being proposed by addressing what the OP says.
Which im sorry, but was definetly not the case in my opinion.

What i said in the thread basically comes down to how is your vote valid when you don't even want to address what's being said?
I don't really get what's wrong with that, unless if that's a rule?

About the point of Eldemade, sure he didn't literally say that he was going to neg his regen.
The thing he said was "it'll take too long to kill you" which is addressed multiple times in the thread.
First of all, he was on a strict timecrunch since he was forced back to the shadow dimensions (wandenreich)
Second, you claimed that aizen's regen has limits despite multiple people proving your why you're wrong, while bringing up the same statement that has been debunked over and over again.
I even addressed this in the OP.
Aizen was locked up in the first place due to his immortality they literally state and show this. i provided proof of this in the actual thread in the form of screenshots.
His regen was never shown to be limited in any sort of way, to which i also provided a ton of proof and screenshots.
All you had was "Yhwach said it'd take some time to kill him"
To which he literally did as soon as he got The Almighty.
Which was also said in the thread.

Your claim is "Aizen's regeneration has limits" from yhwach saying he can kill him.
i then asked you for the direct statement of where that's stated, which you couldn't provide and simply kept saying the same thing while it had already been addressed.
I used the exact same logic as you since you wanted a "direct statement".

I don't really know how you expect me to react when more than half of the stuff in the thread that's being provided is being ignored.
Especially when i have the feeling you didn't even read or checked out the screenshots that i provided along with the things i proposed.

Just because i find your opinion invalid doesn't mean that im aggressive or hostile in any way, i also gave you my reasoning as to why i thought that way.
I also wasn't the only person in the thread that thought you didn't provide proper arguments.

In the end, whether i say that i find your opinion invalid doesn't even matter, considering your position your vote will always count.

Im just not going to make any CRTs in the future, as this will 100% happen again, it's just my personality.
I still don't get what's wrong with wanting a valid reason for a disagreement, if it gets refuted sure, if the points that are made, sure.
But not when it gets ignored.
 
Last edited:
Hellscream said:
I don't really know how you expect me to react when more than half of the stuff in the thread that's being provided is being ignored.
Click to expand...
This is the problem. It's that you see this behavior as a simple matter of course by virtue of how your opponents have acted, but that's not how standards of conduct work. You need to be able to rein in your frustration at these perceived slights or violations of your expectations, and not allow them to turn into public displays of anger towards your detractors. That's not some gargantuan burden being placed on you, it's just really the bare minimum. It's not even particularly helpful to your own case.

If you just wont make CRTs in the future because you don't feel well-equipped to deal with the possibility of mods disagree with you despite them, by your assessment, not addressing your points, then I suppose it's moot, but feeling that someone has ignored your points isn't really a good reason to lash out at them and doesn't really alter our expectations of people when they engage in debates.
 
CloverDragon03 said:
They did not listen to the message and changed this page's statistics

The message they put for the reason for their changes (if it helps to add context) was: Revision due to questionable claims and scaling. Clean up some phrases.

Edit: I've also reverted the changes
Click to expand...
Could someone please ban the aforementioned user? They're continuing to make edits without CRTs despite Ant's warning, shown here
 
I won't spam in this RvR, so I will leave this to the staff members. This will be my last comment. However, if he agreed that Akami should be banned (which it is illogical since no one was actually suggesting it!?!), he should have quoted the entire comment instead of intentionally selecting this specific part. Additionally, the second comment contradicts what you are saying

Also, ; it can't be a misclick when you cut the entire comment and replied to a specific part of my comment.
 
Last edited:
I apologize to intervene in this mess, but there is an issue with the closure of Turkish Discussion Thread. I find it hard to believe that the rule/reasoning behind the closure has not been enforced to none of the other threads mentioned within the rule thread but Turkish one -and took 3 months to apply-. Plus, what even is the reasoning behind closure of such threads? I've read its pros and cons, but I'm pretty sure there should have been work-arounds for this rather than placing the closure message right away. :l
 
NothingToDebateWith said:
I apologize to intervene in this mess, but there is an issue with the closure of Turkish Discussion Thread. I find it hard to believe that the rule (reasoning) behind the closure has not been enforced to none of the other threads mentioned within the rule thread but Turkish one and took 3 months to apply. Plus, what even is the reasoning behind closure of such threads? I've read its pros and cons, but I'm pretty sure there should have been work-arounds for this rather than placing the closure message right away. :l
Click to expand...
Well this isn't really the place to discuss the rule, the reasoning was discussed and debated in the thread that Dread linked. As to why other foreign language threads weren't closed yet despite the rule, I assume people just forgot. It happens.
 
Deagonx said:
Well this isn't really the place to discuss the rule, the reasoning was discussed and debated in the thread that Dread linked. As to why other foreign language threads weren't closed yet despite the rule, I assume people just forgot. It happens.
Click to expand...
Well, the thread is closed way too long ago, so is there any way for me to talk about it (besides bringing it up here)? . -.

Edit: So it appears that there isn't... Huh, weird flex to enforce an English-only rule while things could have been solved by tagging people -that is listed within Multilingual Members List page- for proper translations (of the vaguely suspected rule-violating posts)... Might as well remove the entire "Multilingual Members List" tag since the tag was mostly used for labeling those discussion threads. -. _-.
 
Last edited:
MysticCarnage: The way it was handled seems fair.

Hellscream: The stuff here, and frankly from the first time he was banned, seems mostly fine.

If you're going to say that we're not allowed to say that someone's arguments are "invalid" or that they're "ignoring evidence", then debate will become impossible, because sometimes people actually do that and we need a way to call it out.

Although eventually, the posts here got a bit much, so a thread ban seems fine. Still I wouldn't want much more of a penalty to be placed on him.

Kirinator07: He's been warned loads, and even reported, for similar behaviour in the past. I've now chronicled them in the warning tracker, but even those may not be all since he's repeatedly deleted staff instructions.

Since those instructions seemingly haven't done much, I'd suggest either a short ban to stress the seriousness, or a ban on editing pages until further notice.

Akagami_Shanks1: I'd prefer a one year ban in a case like this.
 
Last edited:
Agnaa said:
Kirinator07: He's been warned loads, and even reported, for similar behavior in the past. I've now chronicled them in the warning tracker, but even those may not be all since he's repeatedly deleted staff instructions.

Since those instructions seemingly haven't done much, I'd suggest either a short ban to stress the seriousness, or a ban on editing pages until further notice.
Click to expand...
I support the latter
 
Um, so, not sure if it is a rule that was broken, but it is the closest case I can think of.

So, this fight was concluded and Weekly asked for its removal. I don’t have anything against removal by itself, the fight was a mess.
However, after a few posts the discussion died down so instead of bumping it Weekly went in and deleted it himself. Now, maybe it was deleted with an agreement from a staff member. However, the deletion log links his own message, which is… I mean, kinda weird, at least link the concluded discussion instead.
 
No staff member has spoken on or agreed with its deletion, so it would be against our procedures for that, yes.

@WeeklyBattles If you have an explanation, you may as well give it.
 
I'm not too sure either. I'd more bring that up in the versus thread removal requests thread. I don't think removing it after it had some discussion (which while ambiguous, was leaning to deletion from those who contributed, who were all non-staff) is much of a rule violation. Not unless such a user continues obstructing things after the removal is reverted.

fwiw I wouldn't consider that worthy of deletion, with the reasons given. It seems like threads typically get removed for being outdated, stomps, or violating our rules on versus threads. Having arguments which you think are debunked is not covered by any of those, especially when there's people still around in the thread who think the arguments are still valid.
 
Agnaa said:
I'm not too sure either. I'd more bring that up in the versus thread removal requests thread. I don't think removing it after it had some discussion (which while ambiguous, was leaning to deletion from those who contributed, who were all non-staff) is much of a rule violation. Not unless such a user continues obstructing things after the removal is reverted.

fwiw I wouldn't consider that worthy of deletion, with the reasons given. It seems like threads typically get removed for being outdated, stomps, or violating our rules on versus threads. Having arguments which you think are debunked is not covered by any of those, especially when there's people still around in the thread who think the arguments are still valid.
Click to expand...
You're right that there was discussion, but as said, no staff member deigned to weigh in on it, so the removal is invalid. I think it's a light offense but very sneaky and underhanded, and still worthy of mention here.
 
Weekly's behavior in that thread is pretty poor.

Lmao the blind FRA train is real
Click to expand...
FRA for a person that has zero reasoning as to why he wins lmao
Click to expand...
Anyone FRAing kirito is ignoring all of the arguments presented in this thread in favor of bias
Click to expand...
Yeah imma be real I'm just going to have this removed if it gets added, the arguments for kirito are laughable, Yang holds quite literally every advantage here
Click to expand...
This thread really do be clownworld, people voting for Kirito with zero reasoning, its honestly insane
Click to expand...
I could go on for a while with these type of quotes, there's genuinely dozens of them. Just being extremely dismissive, declaring himself objectively correct over and over, laughing at his debating opponents, saying they're debunked or biased, saying their votes don't count, etc. Then he underhandedly removes a match up because he wasn't happy that he got outvoted. That's a problem, IMO.

He even quoted the rules to make it seem like he was allowed to discount votes, but left out the sentence right after it that shows he can't.

The winner will be determined by the side having better constructive arguments, rather than one word/one sentence votes, which will be disregarded. However, one word/one sentence votes agreeing with another member's reasoning will be accepted as valid votes.
Click to expand...

He cut off the second sentence and implied that he was allowed to discount any FRA votes, but that's not the case, agreeing with someone elses reasoning is a valid vote. The only way it would not be valid is if no one made an argument at all and just said "Kirito wins" which wouldn't be counted. Pretty underhanded.

I'm glad I did not have the misfortune of arguing in that thread, but we should really re-examine the extent to which we allow Weekly to be so interminably stubborn and spam up versus threads with his repeated insistence that everyone else was proven wrong and their votes shouldn't count, etc.
 
Deagonx said:
Weekly's behavior in that thread is pretty poor.






I could go on for a while with these type of quotes, there's genuinely dozens of them. Just being extremely dismissive, declaring himself objectively correct over and over, laughing at his debating opponents, saying they're debunked or biased, saying their votes don't count, etc. Then he underhandedly removes a match up because he wasn't happy that he got outvoted. That's a problem, IMO.

He even quoted the rules to make it seem like he was allowed to discount votes, but left out the sentence right after it that shows he can't.



He cut off the second sentence and implied that he was allowed to discount any FRA votes, but that's not the case, agreeing with someone elses reasoning is a valid vote. The only way it would not be valid is if no one made an argument at all and just said "Kirito wins" which wouldn't be counted. Pretty underhanded.

I'm glad I did not have the misfortune of arguing in that thread, but we should really re-examine the extent to which we allow Weekly to be so interminably stubborn and spam up versus threads with his repeated insistence that everyone else was proven wrong and their votes shouldn't count, etc.
Click to expand...
I'll say that some of those comments you posted aren't that bad considering I've seen the said by many user. The main issue would be that they were constant, Weekly could have just ignored the thread but didn't, however in defense, it takes time to evaluate all the VS Thread removal requests (especially for someone busy like me) so I could understand getting impatient since it's not a fast pace thread and that the discussion was just dropped, though it could have just been bump.

Again, I'm not in full defense of Weekly's actions and I agree with Bambu in that it's a light offense.
 
I more or less agree with LordGriffin's take. I do think removing the thread was a bit hasty, but at the same time staff generally did not weigh it for or against the removal and probably should have waited for more staff before either way. And while some posts were a bit annoying, I don't think any of them were damaging to the community or harmful. Even various people commonly seen as "Level headed Admins" have historically behaved worse than any of the aforementioned quotes.
 
LordGriffin1000 said:
The main issue would be that they were constant
Click to expand...
This is essentially my same feeling. I recognize that sometimes people say things like this, but the sheer volume of these types of comments strikes me as concerning. I suppose the question needs to be asked, are these comments simply fully allowed? And if not, in what circumstances or with what level of frequency do they become a problem? I didn't count specifically, but I am certain there were at least thirty comments that included some version of that from Weekly in the discussion thread.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
No staff member has spoken on or agreed with its deletion, so it would be against our procedures for that, yes.

@WeeklyBattles If you have an explanation, you may as well give it.
Click to expand...
NGL i legitimately did not know that more input was neded before removing it

If a staff member would be willing to agree with its removal on the board it would be much appreciated
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
31 32 33
Replies
1K
Views
95K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Sticky
Extremely important announcements for our community
Replies
31
Views
5K
Agnaa
Agnaa
Clarification Of Sentence Phrasings And Addition Of Expected Punishments For Each Type Of Rule Breach For All Rules Pages
Replies
19
Views
2K
GarrixianXD
GarrixianXD
AThe1412
Can you restrict a character's Standard Equipment if it gives them a different tier?
Replies
2
Views
480
TheGreatJedi13
TheGreatJedi13
Back
Top