- 165,140
- 72,065
- Thread starter
- #22,601
Accounts that only show up to blatantly severely troll and/or vandalise within our wiki should almost always be given instant permanent bans.
-
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
- 165,140
- 72,065
- Thread starter
- #22,602
That is correct, yes.
- 165,140
- 72,065
- Thread starter
- #22,603
For the record, I agree with Moritzva about that this matchup seems to seriously lack common sense.
- 14,888
- 12,397
I don't know enough Jason to know whether there are people who seriously believe he deserves high tiers, even if they have horribly mistaken evidentiary standards. And that edit did also involve some legitimate cleanup of media links into proper capitalisation, so I was unsure.
ShionAH
He/Him- 14,711
- 3,665
Jason is no where close to 1-A. Even with the worst the absolute dumbest wanks you only get him to like... 2-C scaling to Freddy who has to be wanked to that level as well lol.
So it is indeed a troll
- 165,140
- 72,065
- Thread starter
- #22,608
Thank you. However, there is a big difference between being blatantly clueless and being a blatant clueless vandal.
Dark_heroes
He/Him- 106
- 12
Continuation of the theme with the DartSpayderrs ban
"We have a different IP due to VPN, family access is a necessary measure, and a friend, but not a brother, he called me so that there would not be such suspicions in the future that I was his fake. Because to start everything with the phrase "we are brothers" for everyone could be grounds in the future for considering us as one person.
I don't understand what else is required. But as I understand it, judging by our accounts, the ban will be endless for both."
"We have a different IP due to VPN, family access is a necessary measure, and a friend, but not a brother, he called me so that there would not be such suspicions in the future that I was his fake. Because to start everything with the phrase "we are brothers" for everyone could be grounds in the future for considering us as one person.
I don't understand what else is required. But as I understand it, judging by our accounts, the ban will be endless for both."
- 14,688
- 20,434
Yeah, I definitely agree with closing that thread.
- 30,015
- 31,186
While making spite threads is indeed against the rules, they were being honest while also apologizing. And was mostly accusing various offsite people of sever wank rather than our community. I would suggest closing all of those threads and warning the user to stay away from Kirby related topics; as far as I know they weren't that menacing other than some of those topics.
- 17,419
- 11,766
Yeah, the dude seems chill enough, hence why I only suggested a warning.
- 165,140
- 72,065
- Thread starter
- #22,614
We have been talking in private for a while, and he is not mentally well currently, but I have been trying to help him out, and he is welcome to continue to talk with me if he wishes.
- 5,418
- 1,768
This user vandalized this profile
- 18,393
- 14,311
The OP is creating a heated and toxic environment and refuses to cool down when a staff member pointed this out.
Giving a temp-ban/short-ban to the user in question is not necessary, but we would appreciate a request for chat moderation on the thread and possibly a warning.
For the record, this type of behaviour is not the first time. She has a consistent history of this type of attitude and persistent temperament.
Last edited:
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,289
- 10,740
Maybe the opposition should consider not repeatedly and blatantly lying to my face. That could perhaps diffuse tensions, although nobody seems interested in doing that.
- 32,811
- 37,996
Gilver, Tanin and Tony intend to address your claims later, just wait patiently. That is still not a good excuse for you to lash out like that, let alone throw out accusations without actually showing where they lied.
- 18,393
- 14,311
I am not here to engage in this type of conversation. This mindset, which suggests that "we are allowed to violate rules (or be toxic and combative) because the opposition is being false" would ruin the community as a whole and turn any thread into a poisonous atmosphere.
@KLOL506, in fact, told you multiple times to calm down; so take a step back, and cool down. There is no necessity to prove someone wrong in this manner, neither anyone is obligated to respond to these types of messages.
My report is legitimate, and the fact you got no improvement from last time proves the consistency I pointed out. Many members have been reported for this type of behaviour, including you reporting them for this reason.
@KLOL506, in fact, told you multiple times to calm down; so take a step back, and cool down. There is no necessity to prove someone wrong in this manner, neither anyone is obligated to respond to these types of messages.
My report is legitimate, and the fact you got no improvement from last time proves the consistency I pointed out. Many members have been reported for this type of behaviour, including you reporting them for this reason.
Last edited:
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,289
- 10,740
I... literally did show where they lied though???
People in that thread have repeatedly claimed that the standards for qualitative superiority only refer to POWER, and not SIZE.
This is objectively false:
There is no "accusation" here. The claims that the tiering FAQ don't mention size are verifiably false, unless you wanna try gaslighting me into thinking I just imagined this.
- 32,811
- 37,996
Then, I kindly ask you, can you show me the link to the comments where they said this? That the term "size" is not in the Tiering System FAQ?I... literally did show where they lied though???
People in that thread have repeatedly claimed that the standards for qualitative superiority only refer to POWER, and not SIZE.
This is objectively false:
There is no "accusation" here. The claims that the tiering FAQ don't mention size are verifiably false, unless you wanna try gaslighting me into thinking I just imagined this.
Also I talked with Gilver, he literally said this:
"Even though I explained why the size comparison standard she cited was irrelevant, DT had already mentioned it in his own words. Whatever, busy in work. Will look at it later."
Saying that the standard cited is irrelevant, is not the same thing as saying "the word size isn't in the Tiering System FAQ". I can tag Gilver here if you don't believe me.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,289
- 10,740
Here (Aside from that Ultima has already clarified that the excepts you posted from tiering QnA apply for power of characters not size of structures). It is clearly saying that the quotes on qualitative superiority - which use the word size - do not actually have anything to do with size. Which is absolutely insane if you stop to think about it for two seconds.
While also conveniently ignoring the other quote from DT that explains why no, the size comparison still wouldn't count (and also claiming that DT is actually wrong in the same breath). Interesting!
- 32,811
- 37,996
So far I am not seeing anything where they said "the standards for qualitative superiority only refer to POWER, and not SIZE.", but rather the actual topic of focus at hand is "that the excerpts you posted from tiering QnA apply for power of characters not size of structures".
To me, this only sounds like he's saying that in this case the excerpts (The DMC scans preferably) are not talking about size, but rather power. Nothing about "The standards say". Do correct me if I'm wrong tho.
To me, this only sounds like he's saying that in this case the excerpts (The DMC scans preferably) are not talking about size, but rather power. Nothing about "The standards say". Do correct me if I'm wrong tho.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,289
- 10,740
KLOL, below are the excerpts I quoted. Please explain to me, in detail, how they are not in fact talking about SIZE. Because I'm very curious on how you came to that conclusion.
I understand that this is a lot of words, which is why I highlighted the ones I considered most relevant. So I'll ask again: How does this not have anything to do with size?
- 11,337
- 17,681
The excerpts say "power or size" though, so it's not strictly one or the other
- 32,811
- 37,996
Regardless, I will ask @GilverTheProtoAngelo to elaborate.
But if others deem it too much on this thread, we can wait for his response on the other thread. Because his response to me paints a different picture from what is suggested here.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,289
- 10,740
I... know that? But the opposition is trying to say that it's ONLY power, and that size isn't really relevant at all, which you can clearly see isn't true.
- 18,393
- 14,311
Anyway, thanks for derailing the thread (don't remotely see how this excuses your behaviour until now), my report still stands.
For staff members (administrators and thread moderators); here is the report link if you missed it:
https://vsbattles.com/threads/rule-violation-reports-new-forum.107529/post-6021144
Furthermore, for record, in no susceptibleness, I see how this is a reasonable justification to move to a staff thread to dismiss someone's point because she thinks it is not relevant? However, I will address this matter privately to the higher-up ranks to distinguish between threads that should be restricted to staff or not, as it has become a prevalent practice to restrict any thread regardless of its validity or significance.
For staff members (administrators and thread moderators); here is the report link if you missed it:
https://vsbattles.com/threads/rule-violation-reports-new-forum.107529/post-6021144
Furthermore, for record, in no susceptibleness, I see how this is a reasonable justification to move to a staff thread to dismiss someone's point because she thinks it is not relevant? However, I will address this matter privately to the higher-up ranks to distinguish between threads that should be restricted to staff or not, as it has become a prevalent practice to restrict any thread regardless of its validity or significance.
Last edited:
- 165,140
- 72,065
- Thread starter
- #22,630
@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler
What do you think about this?
- 14,888
- 12,397
I don't think the hostilities quite cross a line of noteworthiness.
And I do agree Gilver was, at best, wrong and misremembering, and was at worst, "lying" about the Tiering Q&A, and so were other people.
And I do agree Gilver was, at best, wrong and misremembering, and was at worst, "lying" about the Tiering Q&A, and so were other people.
- 14,888
- 12,397
@Serlock_Holmes I deleted your reply due to you not being a staff member, and not adding new, relevant information to the report.
- 30,015
- 31,186
I highly doubt Gilver was lying; and from my experience he is a generally civilized and well meaning user. And while I do agree with Agnaa that a ban seems harsh, but KLOL's warning to cool down IMO sounds sufficient. Even if it wasn't her intention, her snarky heated attitude was still unnecessary. The title of the Imgur Album being in all caps and containing a "Breaking of the 3rd commandment" was also unnecessary but not bad enough for an immediate action.
- 4,472
- 5,679
I don't think serious action here is warranted. Fuji's thread has had a great deal of inflammatory comments on a controversial topic, and while I would much rather these topics could be handled civilly, I'd struggle to justify punishing one person for hostile comments from what is ultimately the product of a collectively hostile atmosphere.
That doesn't mean this conduct should be enabled, but at most, I would rather just monitor the thread closely from here to keep on top of any future lapses in conduct.
That doesn't mean this conduct should be enabled, but at most, I would rather just monitor the thread closely from here to keep on top of any future lapses in conduct.
ÆONS
He/Him- 1,484
- 1,029
Okay so originally I was going to abstain from responding to this thread simply because I wasn't sure if I had any input that would be relevant to the report Dread had created, but several hours ago Fuji had made this thread in conjunction to the DMC downgrade thread she had created; clearly in a antagonistic, probably spiteful, manner to the DMC supporters and their arguments. For many who have payed attention to that thread, Fuji frequently tried to apply the arguments DMC supporters made in favor of Low 1-C to Touhou, the verse she has been in control of revisions for the past year or two. This thread is pretty much all about that.
In that thread I asked Fuji what her intentions were in creating that thread and whilst she gave said that she merely wanted to establish the DMC supporters logic, another person participating in it (Robo432343) admitted that it was created to make fun of the DMC supporters. I do not know if they were being serious or not, but I felt that that was a horrible response. And the thing is, even if she wasn't trying to mock the DMC members (which I believe to be unlikely), this is still extremely suspicious and troublesome behavior coming from her. The reason why I am bringing this up instead of waiting is because even though I knew that Fuji has had huge temperament issues, I am still hugely surprised for what she had done and I felt that telling the staff about it now to investigate would be the best that I can do.
As for my comment Agnaa had pointed out to everyone, I was simply trying to apply the information that was contained in the FAQ to counterargue Mokou's argument in the OP who, at the time at least and from my perspective, was primarily basing her point out of power differentials between people, at least in regards to that between Demons and Humans. However, given staff responses particularly by Ultima and Agnaa my assertion was wrong and that I misinterpreted the text and likely Fuji's argument. So I just want to apologize for the misinformation I created. In the case of Giver, I do not know his intentions in his arguments, but like the others I do strongly believe that he was misinterpreting the text and that he wasn't being malicious.
That's all from me.
In that thread I asked Fuji what her intentions were in creating that thread and whilst she gave said that she merely wanted to establish the DMC supporters logic, another person participating in it (Robo432343) admitted that it was created to make fun of the DMC supporters. I do not know if they were being serious or not, but I felt that that was a horrible response. And the thing is, even if she wasn't trying to mock the DMC members (which I believe to be unlikely), this is still extremely suspicious and troublesome behavior coming from her. The reason why I am bringing this up instead of waiting is because even though I knew that Fuji has had huge temperament issues, I am still hugely surprised for what she had done and I felt that telling the staff about it now to investigate would be the best that I can do.
As for my comment Agnaa had pointed out to everyone, I was simply trying to apply the information that was contained in the FAQ to counterargue Mokou's argument in the OP who, at the time at least and from my perspective, was primarily basing her point out of power differentials between people, at least in regards to that between Demons and Humans. However, given staff responses particularly by Ultima and Agnaa my assertion was wrong and that I misinterpreted the text and likely Fuji's argument. So I just want to apologize for the misinformation I created. In the case of Giver, I do not know his intentions in his arguments, but like the others I do strongly believe that he was misinterpreting the text and that he wasn't being malicious.
That's all from me.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,289
- 10,740
Well for the former case, it isn't spite in the slightest. I'm just making a joke about how silly that sort of logic looks when you apply it to another verse (which is why it's in F&G).
And for the latter, I'm just glad the confusion has cleared up somewhat.
- 9,899
- 3,665
No, it’s in a F&G thread because there's no where else to make fun of dmc supporters logic
Last edited:
- 39,355
- 15,166
(Staff, you can delete my reply later)
No, you need to ask a staffs to move your thread to a different discussion type, otherwise the regular members can't do that
Similar threads
