Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Deagonx]

The main issue would be that they were constant

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.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

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.

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

 

[Deagonx]

NGL i legitimately did not know that more input was neded before removing it

I don't understand. You thought that you were authorized to remove a battle from a profile without any staff input at all? As in, you genuinely believed that any user could simply go onto any profile and remove any match ups they disliked?

 

[WeeklyBattles]

I don't understand. You thought that you were authorized to remove a battle from a profile without any staff input at all? As in, you genuinely believed that any user could simply go onto any profile and remove any match ups they disliked?

Yes, thats happened repeatedly in the past so i assumed that it was fine given that people seemed to agree with its removal in the thread

 

[Deagonx]

Yes, thats happened repeatedly in the past so i assumed that it was fine given that people seemed to agree with its removal in the thread

What on earth would be the point of listing concluded match ups on profiles if anyone from the opposing side could remove it at will?

Also, when has this happened in the past? Those match ups should be reinstated if they were removed arbitrarily.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

What on earth would be the point of listing concluded match ups on profiles if anyone from the opposing side could remove it at will?

Also, when has this happened in the past? Those match ups should be reinstated if they were removed arbitrarily.

Eh? It wasant arbitrarily removed at will, it was explained why the thread should be removed and people agreed that it should be removed

 

[Deagonx]

Eh? It wasant arbitrarily removed at will, it was explained why the thread should be removed and people agreed that it should be removed

The match up was a 12-9 vote in favor of Kirito. It is absolutely nonsensical to think that three of the people who lost the vote could show up in the removal request thread and say "we all thought Yang should've won" and then -- without any staff input -- overturn the vote that they had just lost that same day.

Even if all 9 of those votes appeared in that thread to concur with you, it still wouldn't be a valid justification to remove it arbitrarily without any approval from staff. You were just upset that you lost the vote and tried to rehash the discussion in a wiki management thread. That's clear as day.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

The match up was a 12-9 vote in favor of Kirito. It is absolutely nonsensical to think that three of the people who lost the vote could show up in the removal request thread and say "we all thought Yang should've won" and then -- without any staff input -- overturn the vote that they had just lost.

Thats the thing though, if you go through the thread itself no actual argument for how Kirito wins was presented, which is what people took issue with and why the thread was proposed to be removed

 

[Deagonx]

Thats the thing though, if you go through the thread itself no actual argument for how Kirito wins was presented, which is what people took issue with and why the thread was proposed to be removed

Then convince a staff member of that, you obviously are not justified in doing that on your own just because you disagreed with the outcome of the vote. That would render the entire concept of a vote pointless.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Then convince a staff member of that, you obviously are not justified in doing that on your own just because you disagreed with the outcome of the vote. That would render the entire concept of a vote pointless.

I did, mori agreed that it should be removed as evicended by the like left on the post, i figured that was sufficient but I guess not. If you want to ping Mori in that thread then go for it, I cant because I'm not staff.

 

[Antvasima]

Was there a lot of here unacceptable behaviour in the following thread? If so, we should probably delete it.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/turkish-discussion-thread.151412/

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I'm aware of some rule violations but the thread itself wasn't greatly unhinged as far as I'm aware, no. It was closed due to violating our rules regarding spoken languages on the site and I think that's enough.

 

[Moritzva]

Eugh.

First off, I know about both SAO and RWBY, and I have no particular like for each of them. I have not been involved in either of the verses much at all, and I was not on the original thread. I am as close to a knowledgeable, but unbiased party as you can get.

I agree with Weekly and I agreed with Weekly. My like on his comment was, indeed, indicative of my support, and I had vocalized as much on Discord beforehand. Weekly had no ill will in moving forward with the removal, and I do stand by his decision even now.

The arguments for Kirito were, to be frank, lazy at best. I don't particularly care who wins, I just saw a critical lack of actual evidence backing Kirito's position, and just a vague, sweeping wave that some amount of "skill" could overturn Yang's many other advantages. No real proof or elaboration, just a few comments followed by a bunch of FRA.

If people care that much about the thread, they can debate it again and bring proper scans, alongside more in-depth arguments as to why Kirito's skill feats both surpass Yang's skill feats, and why that gap is large enough to surpass Yang's other advantages.

In other words, remove the thread, it was pretty damn bad.

Edit: Also, yes, I know Kirito has other stuff in his arsenal, but those were relatively minor points in the debate. If people think they are massive, more reason to try again.

 

[Deagonx]

Important point of clarification, how is a contested VSB thread removal determined? I personally am not in support with removing the match up. More than a few comments went into detail explaining how Kiritos abilities would ensure the win (such as paralysis) and while the opposition of course argued against that, I do not feel that the arguments for Kirito were so substanceless that it would warrant overturning the vote or removing the match up.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Eugh.

First off, I know about both SAO and RWBY, and I have no particular like for each of them. I have not been involved in either of the verses much at all, and I was not on the original thread. I am as close to a knowledgeable, but unbiased party as you can get.

I agree with Weekly and I agreed with Weekly. My like on his comment was, indeed, indicative of my support, and I had vocalized as much on Discord beforehand. Weekly had no ill will in moving forward with the removal, and I do stand by his decision even now.

The arguments for Kirito were, to be frank, lazy at best. I don't particularly care who wins, I just saw a critical lack of actual evidence backing Kirito's position, and just a vague, sweeping wave that some amount of "skill" could overturn Yang's many other advantages. No real proof or elaboration, just a few comments followed by a bunch of FRA.

If people care that much about the thread, they can debate it again and bring proper scans, alongside more in-depth arguments as to why Kirito's skill feats both surpass Yang's skill feats, and why that gap is large enough to surpass Yang's other advantages.

In other words, remove the thread, it was pretty damn bad.

Edit: Also, yes, I know Kirito has other stuff in his arsenal, but those were relatively minor points in the debate. If people think they are massive, more reason to try again.

In that case, please do mention it on the removal thread. Liking isn't traditionally taken as a for-sure endorsement. I'll let y'all discuss the actual removal, if a rule violation was really necessary to prompt such a discussion, but it should be taken over to the other thread (or, at least, off of this one). Thank you for responding.

 

[NothingToDebateWith]

Was there a lot of here unacceptable behaviour in the following thread? If so, we should probably delete it.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/turkish-discussion-thread.151412/

The unacceptable behaviour was to ban those multilingual discussion threads as a whole if you'd ask me, but if you're unsure of its contents (save for the reported one because people have gotten its translation already), I'd be happy to translate everything over there for you.;

Also, none of the other multilingual discussion threads have been closed by this rule yet, I sure wonder why.

 

[Moritzva]

I get that a like isn't always agreement, I was just busy that day and didn't feel like making a superfluous comment. Glad I could clarify now.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

The unacceptable behaviour was to ban those multilingual discussion threads as a whole if you'd ask me, but if you're unsure of its contents (save for the reported one because people have gotten its translation already), I'd be happy to translate everything over there for you.;

Also, none of the other multilingual discussion threads have been closed by this rule yet, I sure wonder why.

Link 'em, rather than imply something fishy. I'll close all of 'em myself, happily.

 

[TiltedFN]

where do i go to request a closure of a thread? you can delete this after

 

[Mr. Bambu]

All of the threads linked to me by Dread just now were closed- Chinese, Indonesian, and Brazilian. If there are others, let me know.

where do i go to request a closure of a thread? you can delete this after

Here.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

In that case, please do mention it on the removal thread. Liking isn't traditionally taken as a for-sure endorsement. I'll let y'all discuss the actual removal, if a rule violation was really necessary to prompt such a discussion, but it should be taken over to the other thread (or, at least, off of this one). Thank you for responding.

So am i good now or?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

So am i good now or?

It's not good to be removed yet, since there's contention, and it still is a warning to not do that again, but for now, yes. Get firm confirmation next time.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

It's not good to be removed yet, since there's contention, and it still is a warning to not do that again, but for now, yes. Get firm confirmation next time.

I mean, like i said, i genuinely didnt think i did anything wrong because i thought Mori's like was sufficient, and Mori came here to show that i was correct, i dont see what the issue is

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I mean, like i said, i genuinely didnt think i did anything wrong because i thought Mori's like was sufficient, and Mori came here to show that i was correct, i dont see what the issue is

I'm telling you: you did. Mori's like was not sufficient. You now know better, just get it in writing dude, it's not something you need to try to DebateLord against.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

I'm telling you: you did. Mori's like was not sufficient. You now know better, just get it in writing dude, it's not something you need to try to DebateLord against.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I didn't say she didn't say that my man. I'm saying that at that point, you did wrong for not having this explicit confirmation. And to not do that again in the future. Because if you do, this warning here will have been ignored.

Go about your day. The removal is still being discussed, since Deagon takes issue with it. Feel free to talk about it in the appropriate thread.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

I didn't say she didn't say that my man. I'm saying that at that point, you did wrong for not having this explicit confirmation. And to not do that again in the future. Because if you do, this warning here will have been ignored.

Go about your day. The removal is still being discussed, since Deagon takes issue with it. Feel free to talk about it in the appropriate thread.

Shrug

Aight, will do, sorry for the confusion

 

[Antvasima]

Moritzva made sense to me above.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

For staff reports you have to contact a member of the HR.

You can look who are they here

Deleting this and further derailing now

 

[Starsprite53]

The ****?

Wandering Trader

The Wandering Trader is a passive mob from Minecraft. They can spawn anywhere in the Overworld, and come with their llamas and a variety of wares to sell in exchange for emeralds. Tier: Unknown physically, 9-A with trader llamas Name: Wandering Trader Origin: Minecraft Gender: Genderless (There...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Apparently a use called drbloxite edited this page

 

[Lonkitt]

The ****?

Wandering Trader

The Wandering Trader is a passive mob from Minecraft. They can spawn anywhere in the Overworld, and come with their llamas and a variety of wares to sell in exchange for emeralds. Tier: Unknown physically, 9-A with trader llamas Name: Wandering Trader Origin: Minecraft Gender: Genderless (There...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Apparently a use called drbloxite edited this page

That user's vandalized a few other pages in the past it seems

 

[Antvasima]

I blocked them:

User contributions for DrBloxite | VS Battles Wiki | Fandom

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Agnaa]

Recently, a conversation among over a dozen high-level staff members and related parties came to the conclusion that @Artorimachi_Meteoraft should be banned for one year.

The main reason for this is the repeated pestering of users in DMs, both on and off-site, after those users had already refused his requests.

The sheer scale this happened on, the fact that previous staff warnings weren't listened to, and the fact that he was previously permanently banned, all led into the ban and its length.

Some of the infringing conversations we found are linked here, but due to privacy concerns, not all are included, and others will likely be added as permission rolls in from the users involved:

• Screenshot 1, Screenshot 2, Screenshot 3

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Going to chime in that while we received a good few reports on the matter, and a significant fraction of those also provided screenshots, permission was not received explicitly to post all of them. Mine above are a small sample.

 

[Dalesean027]

Do they actually get worse than this or is it just being a constant annoyance and invading into people DMs who don't want the hassle asking these kinds of questions?

Like any foul language, threats, or insults?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Do they actually get worse than this or is it just being a constant annoyance and invading into people DMs who don't want the hassle asking these kinds of questions?

Like any foul language, threats, or insults?

Offsite foul language would basically never be considered as a bannable offense, even in the worst case scenarios. These specifically were used to show his tendency to ask for personal information of people unwilling to give it to him.

Without getting too far into the reeds of the content of the other evidence, since again, we don't have explicit permission to speak on all of it, yes, there were implied threats involved in at least some of them. Forgive me for speaking vaguely.

 

[Dalesean027]

Offsite foul language would basically never be considered as a bannable offense, even in the worst case scenarios. These specifically were used to show his tendency to ask for personal information of people unwilling to give it to him.

Without getting too far into the reeds of the content of the other evidence, since again, we don't have explicit permission to speak on all of it, yes, there were implied threats involved in at least some of them. Forgive me for speaking vaguely.

Well not to defend any kind of threats or asking of personal information but we do have it on record that they have autism so idk yall can decide what to do with that.

But yeah as you've said you can't speak too deeply into things so I understand if there's other nuances to things I'm missing so sorry about that if this comes off in bad taste.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Recently, a conversation among over a dozen high-level staff members and related parties came to the conclusion that @Artorimachi_Meteoraft should be banned for one year.

The main reason for this is the repeated pestering of users in DMs, both on and off-site, after those users had already refused his requests.

The sheer scale this happened on, the fact that previous staff warnings weren't listened to, and the fact that he was previously permanently banned, all led into the ban and its length.

Some of the infringing conversations we found are linked here, but due to privacy concerns, not all are included, and others will likely be added as permission rolls in from the users involved:

• Screenshot 1, Screenshot 2, Screenshot 3

This user has already been given a year-long ban for previous unacceptable conduct so...

 

[Chariot190]

I have perms to post here before anyone gets trigger-happy.

As someone who has to deal with pokemonfan daily, I don't advocate a ban, though it might be a tad late for that.

Yes, he can be annoying at times, yes he asks a lot of questions (that's just chat pings btw, and not even dm's or the few hundred questions pre-chat) I get pinged like 3-4 times a day for anything ranging from basic verse questions, to shit I absolutely have no idea why he'd ask. Yesterday I was pinged over Robin King of all things.

The thing is, lil bro has hard autism (I have confirmed this from multiple sources, including himself. Apparently several staff knows of this as well, including Ant) and lacks some self-awareness. Nothing he does is intended to be malicious, or a nuisance, he just doesn't realize that's what he's being and is sincerely asking, or, he doesn't recognize the connotations of what he's saying even if he didn't mean for it to come off like that (I'm sure a handful of people can attest to this, Unknown, Ban, etc).

Yes, him asking a fucktillion questions can become a tad much, but it's in your right to just ignore them i do for about half ngl or tell him point-blank you do not want to be asked about things like that or to **** off, I can generally say that if you are firm and blatant, he tends to understand and stops, at least for a time or stops on that topic.

Banning the kid because he is annoying is ten steps too far, unironically just tell him firmly to **** off and do not DM over questions like that, you might have to a few times, but as said, obviously something is at play that isn't inherently his fault.

And banning someone who has zero actual malicious intent or purposefully doing what they're doing that essentially just boils down to "they're annoying sometimes" I can't reasonably stand by, otherwise we may as well ban most of the wiki for being annoying at times.

we don't have explicit permission to speak on all of it, yes, there were implied threats involved in at least some of them.

Probably a misinterpretation of things or a joke taken too literally (As said, not much self-awareness), as from what I've seen which is a lot and after asking personally, he'd never threaten anyone's life, to harm, or doxing or anything of the sort for "not joining" and while he does want everyone in, he wouldn't seriously do anything akin to that.
Of course, he has asked or said many things that come off as unhinged without proper context (Just the other day I had to explain to M3X that the kid going off about rape, isn't due to malicious or degenerate tendencies, but because he was watching Goblin Slayer, a fact I would have missed if he didn't ping me just a few hours beforehand to ask questions about it and my opinion on Goblins and why he thinks they're bad and vile again, don't know why he'd ask me about GS of all things, but this is an example of shit he says without context seeming way worse than it is, given he doesn't elaborate or give context to most of what he says, and he could reference or make a joke about something he discussed with someone else, in a convo with a different person and come off completely different than intended.

Hell, discussing this with him personally, he's actually being shockingly level-headed, he doesn't ask to be unbanned, he just wants any misunderstandings cleared, or for others to not think he's worse than he actually is.

This might come off in bad taste, and I don't pretend to know everything that happened, but if he actually did do some hefty bad shit off-site, that should be the reason for the RVR.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

I've also been on the receiving end of this, and yeah, this definitely deserves a ban. A lot of what he says is just extremely uncomfortable to listen to (like recounting one of his dreams about how he made me into "one of his bitches"). This is on top of apparently using the N-word in conversation so often that his phone will autocorrect other words to it.

And to respond to Chariot's thing above... I mean I get it, I have autism and that does make it harder for me to interact with people normally too. But I also know it isn't really a shield, so while I think he shouldn't be banned just for "being annoying", I think the stuff I mentioned above goes well beyond what can be justified with autism.