Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I see. Thank you for explaining.Because if you click the link InfiniteDay posted, it takes you to the version of the page at the time, not the current version.
https://vsbattles.com/threads/dragon-ball-super-discussion-thread-100.107592/post-6003727if we're on the topic of coherency, your english could use a little work. that is none of my business, though
https://vsbattles.com/threads/dragon-ball-super-discussion-thread-100.107592/post-6003740Is English your first language?
https://vsbattles.com/threads/dragon-ball-super-discussion-thread-100.107592/post-6003952Quit being halfwitted.
https://vsbattles.com/threads/dragon-ball-super-discussion-thread-100.107592/post-5993576Areth thou stupid or simply ignorant?
I’m sure he has been reported before, although the warning tracker doesn’t have anything on him (prolly because it was made after he was reported)Has he been warned before? Only the latter two warrant significant attention
Reporting Nullflowerblush for his bad behavior towards other people and mocking his writings
if we're on the topic of coherency, your english could use a little work. that is none of my business, though
Ordinarily, these two would not constitute poor behaviour. They can be phrased as legitimate statements and questions. However, looking at the thread, it is clear in the context that these statements were made not as a legitimate inquiry and instead as an attempt to intentionally demean the other user. I believe this meaningfully changes the situation, though I can see above that Andytrenom did not see it the same way.Is English your first language?
Quit being halfwitted.
These two statements are unambiguously inappropriate for a civil discussion, and should be addressed.Areth thou stupid or simply ignorant?
I really dont think the topic ban extension is fair, as my level of participation in the thread was practically non-existent, but the main issue i have is with the extension I received in August. I got reported for breaching the topic ban, however I argued back saying that 90 days has already passed, which is a common mistake to have,as pretty much any other site uses 30 day periods, and even you an agnaa make the distinction of referring to 30 day periods. Probably shouldn't have argued back, but whatever.I think that extending Marshadow29's topic ban with 30 days
A warning seems to be all that is required here, yes.If there are no objections, I'll leave the user a warning on the thread, particularly regarding the latter two statements.
Okay. That seems to have been a simple mistake then.I really dont think the topic ban extension is fair, as my level of participation in the thread was practically non-existent, but the main issue i have is with the extension I received in August. I got reported for breaching the topic ban, however I argued back saying that 90 days has already passed, which is a common mistake to have,as pretty much any other site uses 30 day periods, and even you an agnaa make the distinction of referring to 30 day periods. Probably shouldn't have argued back, but whatever.
They were explicitly told on their message wall the exact date the topic ban would end. When told after 90 days had passed (two days before it would be lifted) that their topic ban still applied, they obstinately argued that it didn't.Okay. That seems to have been a simple mistake then.
Given that I believed my ban was already past my expiration date, ( and i was being threatened with an extension), I felt the need to defend myself. Shouldn't have done that, but that was my thought process.They were explicitly told on their message wall the exact date the topic ban would end. When told after 90 days had passed (two days before it would be lifted) that their topic ban still applied, they obstinately argued that it didn't.
It wasn't lengthened for making a mistake, it was lengthened for making a mistake, having the mistake pointed out, but putting their fingers in their ears and arguing that actually the mistake never happened. Going "Staff voted for 3 months, which is 90 days, not 92 days, so I should be unbanned right now. Bambu's in the wrong for saying it would last until August 3rd."
You can read the events of that here.
The first time he broke it, it was to August 3rd and he posted on August 1st. Bambu's wall post very clearly said August 3rd. He then argued here in RVR that August 1st was 90 days from the last Nasu post he made, therefore his topic ban should end on August 1st because 90 days is three months.Well, did he misunderstand or misremember and break his topic ban time before he was told about that he was mistaken? If so it is considerably less severe.
At worst, he seems like the type who makes occasional slips; nothing he's done warrants a ban, but the warning he got from DarkGrath is sufficient.Has he been warned before? Only the latter two warrant significant attention
past offense aside, an extension on the grounds of "hey man, you just need 1 vote" is needlessly harsh. And considering pretty much everything else uses the 30 day standard, that was a pretty reasonable conclusion to come to, not out of trying to find a way to slide past my ban, as before this, I hadn't gotten reported before ( besides posting in a discussion thread, but that didnt go anywhere, for obvious reasons). One of the staff members in the thread even said " You waited 3 months, you can wait 2 more days" or something along those lines. I dont think defending myself against an unfair extension was being "difficult and unreasonable".The first time he broke it, it was to August 3rd and he posted on August 1st. Bambu's wall post very clearly said August 3rd. He then argued here in RVR that August 1st was 90 days from the last Nasu post he made, therefore his topic ban should end on August 1st because 90 days is three months.
When it was pointed out to him that Bambu's wall post very clearly states "August 3rd" not "90 days from the last Nasu post" he continued to argue here for 4-5 posts insisting that his topic ban should end on the 1st. He was being rather difficult and unreasonable on top of violating the topic ban, so we extended it a month. Him violating this again is what makes me think it should be extended once more.
Do not attempt to downgrade Goku from 2-C with the argument that he didn't maintain the power of Super Saiyan God; it's made clear he did, and downgrade attempts have been repeatedly rejected
you're allowed to argue for a discussion rule to be removed as long as you bring new information. Veronica made it sound like there was additional information that she had, although not in the OP (not sure why).Reporting @Veronica for breaking one of the rules imposed on DB and her attempts twice in a row in the same month
link rule
her first attempt, she has already been warned by @LephyrTheRevanchist when trying to revive the subject
Second attempt with same arguments and different titles
She also went to other threads and spammed in order to get attention to her own.Reporting @Veronica for breaking one of the rules imposed on DB and her attempts twice in a row in the same month
link rule
her first attempt, she has already been warned by @LephyrTheRevanchist when trying to revive the subject
Second attempt with same arguments and different titles
For added context: The original thread that added the rule. She has been attempting the same downgrade for months and doesn't show any signs of stopping. I would honestly argue for a topic ban at this point.Reporting @Veronica for breaking one of the rules imposed on DB and her attempts twice in a row in the same month
link rule
her first attempt, she has already been warned by @LephyrTheRevanchist when trying to revive the subject
Second attempt with same arguments and different titles
Advertisement?For what it's worth, Veronica also DM'd me about this out of the blue. IDK why, I suppose I'll never know.
Maybe. Who knows.Advertisement?
I understand she seems very passionate about discussing DB, and on other topics of the verse I seem to remember she did brought interesting points, so I wouldn't say it needs to be a permanent topic ban. 1/3 months seem reasonable to me, maybe 6 at maximum to see if she cools down on the spam. Am open to other suggestions too.A topic ban seems reasonable then.
So should we reduce his ban length?Giving TheMonkeMan a 1 month ban should be enough. We get along quite well in One Piece threads, so he probably though that expressing himself like that was acceptable.
Being frank, reading through her comments on the thread, she was met with the age old "it's useless to talk to you anyways" (which for the record is by far the closest comment to a rule violation in there) comment just before she complained about being dismissed. So her complaint was legitimately valid. She never insults any entity in that thread, she attacks the claims and dismisses attempts to bring up outside examples (which may or may not be valid comparisons, hard to say).I'd like to request some staff to evaluate Dread's comments on this thread. I consulted with a staff member, and they indicated this may be report-worthy when I asked.
Dread made multiple mocking and indirectly snide comments targeted toward several people she did not agree with on the thread. She characterized the attempts to cast doubt on her opposition as making her into some "crazy woman" evaluating things in bad faith. I personally wouldn't have made much of it if she hadn't done the same thing again, characterizing these interactions as people deliberately trying to question her common sense itself. If the previous two instances just seemed like an exaggeration of her comments, this last one should put that to rest. This entire comment reeks of taking a very condescending and mocking tone, ending with her literally mischaracterizing the situation by saying, "But hey, a statement is always valid, no matter the ridiculousness!"
You can look at mine and BestMGQScalerEver's comments for further context if you don't trust my assessments. At no point did either of us say anything to the effect of "we always need to accept statements." I was consistently expressing that we should not say it's automatically unreliable just because it's a statement and kept asking for context for further evaluation. MGQScaler took a more assertive role considering he created the CRT, but the condescending attitude and bad faith mischaracterizations toward people willing to doubt her was incredibly unwarranted.
It's nothing that would really escalate beyond a warning, but it was still very unbecoming, rude, and unnecessary to make such remarks.
Fair enough. If that is your determination of the thread, I would like to rescind my request for any further evaluations on it. I do believe the thread was starting to get out of hand, and it was probably a good thing it was closed when it was by OP request. Thank you for taking the time to evaluate this matter; it is greatly appreciated. I will hope that any threads going forward just don't reach such a point again so that situations like this don't happen.Being frank, reading through her comments on the thread, she was met with the age old "it's useless to talk to you anyways" (which for the record is by far the closest comment to a rule violation in there) comment just before she complained about being dismissed. So her complaint was legitimately valid. She never insults any entity in that thread, she attacks the claims and dismisses attempts to bring up outside examples (which may or may not be valid comparisons, hard to say).
She didn't do anything report worthy here, her behavior is about par on that thread.