• 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)

Moritzva said:
No.

No, also he does not have these.

If he was facing a grizzly bear he would also be screwed. Not to mention the fact that dinosaurs are known for their tougher, more scaly skin regardless.

I literally wrote the stomp page, Agnaa. I know how it works. Walt is screwed. The existence of people ignorant to the fact that his tiny gun is completely incapable of doing anything worthwhile to it does not prove otherwise. He's an untrained cancer patient with a glock versus a large dinosaur. Quit it.
Click to expand...
ShivaShakti said:
There is literally nothing Walter can even do. It's a cancer ridden middle aged man vs one of the largest terrestrial predators in history. He has no win conditions.
Click to expand...
For the record, I agree with Moritzva about that this matchup seems to seriously lack common sense.
 
Antvasima said:
Accounts that only show up to blatantly severely troll and/or vandalise within our wiki should almost always be given instant permanent bans.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Agnaa said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Agnaa said:
Alright, I'll permaban for edits like those in the future.
Click to expand...
Thank you. However, there is a big difference between being blatantly clueless and being a blatant clueless vandal.
 
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."
 
ShivaShakti said:
There is literally nothing Walter can even do. It's a cancer ridden middle aged man vs one of the largest terrestrial predators in history. He has no win conditions.
Click to expand...
Antvasima said:
For the record, I agree with Moritzva about that this matchup seems to seriously lack common sense.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I definitely agree with closing that thread.
 
Eseseso said:
@Rose_of_Ragnarok has been making spite matches due to his anti-Kirby bias and admitted to such himself many times.

Obviously this isn't bad enough to warrant a perma-ban or anything like that, just a warning.
Click to expand...
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.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the dude seems chill enough, hence why I only suggested a warning.
 
Eseseso said:
@Rose_of_Ragnarok has been making spite matches due to his anti-Kirby bias and admitted to such himself many times.

Obviously this isn't bad enough to warrant a perma-ban or anything like that, just a warning.
Click to expand...
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.
 

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
KLOL506 said:
let alone throw out accusations without actually showing where they lied.
Click to expand...
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:
image.png

image.png

image.png

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.
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
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:
image.png

image.png

image.png

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.
Click to expand...
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?

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.
 
KLOL506 said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.

KLOL506 said:
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."
Click to expand...
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!
 
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.
 
KLOL506 said:
To me, this only sounds like he's saying that in this case the excerpts are not talking about size, but rather power. Nothing about "The standards say".
Click to expand...
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.
image.png

image.png

image.png

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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
ImmortalDread said:

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.
Click to expand...
@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?
 
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.
GilverTheProtoAngelo said:
Aside from that Ultima has already clarified that the excepts you posted from tiering QnA apply for power of characters not size of structures.
Click to expand...
ÆONS said:
I don't think the scenario you're describing is equivalent to what I'm talking about. The part of the FAQ you're citing really only applies to a character's power in relation to others whose power is only stated or expressed as countable infinity. Multiplying countable infinite power with any finite or even (countably) infinite variable would always lead to the same result simply because you can't add, divide, multiply, or subtract from infinity. It doesn't really apply the same way in regards to size where principles regarding how a character who is bigger than a countably infinite large 4-D space are often different from the scenario you and I just described.
Click to expand...
 
@Serlock_Holmes I deleted your reply due to you not being a staff member, and not adding new, relevant information to the report.
Regular members aren't allowed to post in this Rule Violation Reports thread, unless they are making a report here, have direct involvement in a report, or have relevant information about a report that has not been brought up yet, in order to not derail or delay the processing of the reports, or worse instigate further rule violations. Repeated violations will be followed with a strict warning, followed by a threadban for one week to a site ban for some duration, depending on the severity of their conduct.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
@Eseseso I deleted your reply due to you not being a staff member, and not adding new, relevant information to the report.
Regular members aren't allowed to post in this Rule Violation Reports thread, unless they are making a report here, have direct involvement in a report, or have relevant information about a report that has not been brought up yet, in order to not derail or delay the processing of the reports, or worse instigate further rule violations. Repeated violations will be followed with a strict warning, followed by a threadban for one week to a site ban for some duration, depending on the severity of their conduct.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
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.
 
ÆONS said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, it’s in a F&G thread because there's no where else to make fun of dmc supporters logic
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
30 31 32
Replies
1K
Views
93K
Comiphorous
Comiphorous
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
1K
GarrixianXD
GarrixianXD
AThe1412
Can you restrict a character's Standard Equipment if it gives them a different tier?
Replies
2
Views
414
TheGreatJedi13
TheGreatJedi13
Back
Top