• 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)

Veronica: I'd suggest a ban of 2-8 weeks, and a topic ban extension of 1-3 months.

Funny Valentine Thread: I don't care. In the grand scheme of things, we'd only really care about staff evaluations, and non-staff arguments in such a thread. A non-staff member FRA'ing does nothing to aid such a thread getting passed, so why should we care to police that? Wait until there's actual evidence of sockpuppeting or of contributing mindlessly before we do anything.

Hollow Vanity: This situation is resolved, imo. I said that the evidence given wasn't compelling for being a sock, but that the defense given wasn't compelling either. If you care, I also don't think the comments are report-worthy either.

JozaySmith: Blocked for 3 days.

EDIT: Realised I should also comment on this case.

Fujiwara: I think I've made my stance here pretty clear, that I don't find anything said reportable. I don't think we should count it as a strike against her, and I would be fine with a "Weekly-like" situation where she repeats such infractions endlessly (except I wouldn't consider it "Weekly-like" since I considered Weekly's actions to actually be rule violations). But if enough staff members think otherwise, then you can all agree to leave a warning, I'll track it, and if other things which you consider offences continue, you should ban her.
 
Last edited:
Dereck03 said:
Dunno if this is report worthy but this thread seems sus.

The current comments are from users with almost no comments and although the regular members can't see it, there are 2 more users waiting in queue to comment and both are users with only 1 comment saying that they agree with the thread and they are newly created accounts, it seems to me that they are just accounts of friends who have simply been asked to agree with the thread and that's it.

Here are the accounts.

Edit. Seems like medeus accepted their comment in the thread so they are visible now.
Click to expand...
Okay, it’s getting weird. A bunch of new users suddenly appears to agree with the thread.

It’s worth checking.
 
M3X_2.0 said:
Okay, it’s getting weird. A bunch of new users suddenly appears to agree with the thread.

It’s worth checking.
Click to expand...
That's not the only thread I've seen with a bunch of new users agreeing.

vsbattles.com

Problems regarding some COTE calculations

Ayanokouji and Horikita fall 10 meters: This calculation would work if Ayanokouji and Horikita directly fell to the ground from 10 meters distance but that's clearly not the case as Ayanokouji states that they "went tumbling down the slope". Ayanokouji does not tank the full energy of the fall...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com

This thread seems to have the same elements.
 
GarrixianXD said:
That's not the only thread I've seen with a bunch of new users agreeing.

vsbattles.com

Problems regarding some COTE calculations

Ayanokouji and Horikita fall 10 meters: This calculation would work if Ayanokouji and Horikita directly fell to the ground from 10 meters distance but that's clearly not the case as Ayanokouji states that they "went tumbling down the slope". Ayanokouji does not tank the full energy of the fall...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com

This thread seems to have the same elements.
Click to expand...
I saw one user with one message there, one user with 88 messages there, and then a bunch in the range of hundreds.

Is that really worth reporting over?

I don't want this thread getting overrun with baseless reports like this.
 
Agnaa said:
I saw one user with one message there, one user with 88 messages there, and then a bunch in the range of hundreds.

Is that really worth reporting over?

I don't want this thread getting overrun with baseless reports like this.
Click to expand...
Fair tbh, call off the case then.
 

Report Status Update​


User: Veronica

Report: Violating topic ban

Status: Open, people have suggested ban (DDM, Ant), topic ban extension (Bambu), either (CloverDragon), and both (Agnaa)

Thread: Funny Valentine Thread

Report: Suspicious agreements from new users

Status: Open, suggested no action (Agnaa)

User: Hollow Vanity

Report: Suspected Vapourrrrr sock

Status: Open, some suggested no action (Agnaa, Bambu), others did (Ovens)

User: Fujiwara

Report: Toxicity

Status: Open, most want a warning (KLOL, DDM, Crabwhale, Bambu), some want nothing (Agnaa), some were unclear (DarkGrath)

I'm going to continue considering all of these "open". Even though the Veronica case has agreement on a ban and topic ban extension, I'm the only one who has thrown out a number, and no-one has agreed to it.
 
Last edited:
alright, alright

Fujiwara: Seems definitely in poor taste, I'd support a warning.

Funny Valentine Thread: I agreed elsewhere that it's suspicious and might be an indicator of something but on its own is not a violation nor worthy of actual action.

Veronica: Violating a topic ban is grounds to have said ban extended, makes sense to me. Further infractions should warrant outright ban time, however.
 
The Valentine thread is basically rejected at this point, although we should keep a closer look at the members involved with the FRA train because it really seems like a bunch of socks from the same user. Might as well close it.
 
I'd like to add sth about HollowVanity.
One, they've been making many calcs and fast. New members rarely know how calcs are made when they've only sent 70 messages thus far.
Additionally one could argue the pixel scaling is somewhat similar to Cloudygami's with the main difference being the fact that they now add the amount of pixels there.
Cloudy's pixel scaling, Hollow's pixel scaling

I would also like to add that they know and link this thread as an argument here.
The thread was closed on the 15th of August while Hollow joined last wednesday. Here's a question. How could he have known about this thread which was closed WAY before he joined and suddenly be able to pull it out and use it for calcs and arguments. Ain't that a bit sus? This was also a thread where Vapourr was very active.
 
Arceus0x said:
I'd like to add sth about HollowVanity.
One, they've been making many calcs and fast. New members rarely know how calcs are made when they've only sent 70 messages thus far.
Additionally one could argue the pixel scaling is somewhat similar to Cloudygami's with the main difference being the fact that they now add the amount of pixels there.
Cloudy's pixel scaling, Hollow's pixel scaling

I would also like to add that they know and link this thread as an argument here.
The thread was closed on the 15th of August while Hollow joined last wednesday. Here's a question. How could he have known about this thread which was closed WAY before he joined and suddenly be able to pull it out and use it for calcs and arguments. Ain't that a bit sus? This was also a thread where Vapourr was very active.
Click to expand...
erm pal I'm ngl your kinda just waffling.

I know how to make calcs fast because I'm in many debate servers meaning, I've made calcs multiple times and quickly (when your in a debate with someone you gotta be quick with calcs so I'm kind of a pro at making quick and good calcs). Vs Wiki isn't the only place where people debate and make calcs mate, dont get it twisted

My pixel scaling is similar to clouds because we both use paint, I'm not cloud broski, get some better evidence cause my pixel scaling is probably similar to 100 people since many people use paint as an app.

That thread was sent in a discod server I'm in, It was also sent to me by vapour who asked me to calc him the feat lol, if an ss is needed of that I can send it

Basically all your points are rubbish and make no sense, next time you make a report remember that our I.P doesn't match so its impossible for us to be the same person unless we move every time we join the wiki
 
Twisted_Little_Raven said:
Sent to me by vapour

Joined last Wednesday

Defends themselves like all vapour socks

Same discord

Familiar with vsb

Surprised you weren't banned already. Had me at last Wednesday joining the wiki
Click to expand...
Yeah mate, theres a couple other people on the wiki that were sent by vapour or recommended to join the wiki by vapour, I can tell you 3 rn

Yeah, thanks for pointing the obvious out

Erm, do you have examples of this pal ?

Yeah, do you want an inv to the server or sum ?!

I'm not though ? I didn't even know how to do that priority: 123 thingy until some guy told me, the wiki is kinda easy to learn though, stop acting like if you a new user you gotta act like some brainless bumb for a month

Okay pal, I guess every new user is vapour
 
Can we make an exclusive rule that bars all calcs from being evaluated if they come from Vapourrr's proxy?

In fact, if you so much as recieve a message from Vapourrr, your calc making privileges for TR should be stripped from you permanently.

I think this is fair.
 
Sir_Ovens said:
Can we make an exclusive rule that bars all calcs from being evaluated if they come from Vapourrr's proxy?

In fact, if you so much as recieve a message from Vapourrr, your calc making privileges for TR should be stripped from you permanently.

I think this is fair.
Click to expand...
I agree ngl, that guy is pure evil
 
Sir_Ovens said:
Can we make an exclusive rule that bars all calcs from being evaluated if they come from Vapourrr's proxy?

In fact, if you so much as recieve a message from Vapourrr, your calc making privileges for TR should be stripped from you permanently.

I think this is fair.
Click to expand...
I'm fine with that.

Although, I also think it's pretty clear HollowVanity is Vapourrrrr's latest account.
 
I think that's for the best. In the absolute worst case scenario we have simply banned an admitted close associate of two users who are both perma-banned for sock-puppeting, uses the same mannerisms, has the same aggro tendencies, focuses on the same verse, and is certain to be an issue moving forward. As the saying goes, if it quacks like a duck.
 
Sir_Ovens said:
Can we make an exclusive rule that bars all calcs from being evaluated if they come from Vapourrr's proxy?

In fact, if you so much as recieve a message from Vapourrr, your calc making privileges for TR should be stripped from you permanently.

I think this is fair.
Click to expand...
This really isn't enforceable as a rule. A person who makes a calc doesn't have a monopoly on the validity of that calc - two people can hypothetically entirely independently of one another calc the same feat and get the same result, and the person who made it has zero bearing on whether the result is valid.

Obviously, the relevant context here is that Vapourrr has made poor calcs for TR, and we've seen that Vapourrr is using sockpuppet accounts to continue interacting with the wiki, thereby making more poor calcs. But that just means we need to get rid of the sockpuppets if/when they appear, and to reject the calcs as we would with any other invalid calc. If, hypothetically, Vapourr on a sockpuppet account made an entirely valid calc, and someone reposted that calc verbatim on the wiki after they were banned, rejecting that calc purely on the basis of who originally made it would be completely unreasonable.

Just keep an eye out for more sockpuppets and reject bad calcs as always. There is no need to single out Vapourrr.
 
The non-staff intrusions are getting out of hand. This is a remind that you should only comment here if you are directly involved in the report or have relevant information to provide. This is not a venue for non-staff to share their opinions of potential punishments.

And even if you are involved in a report, that isn't free license to post random nonsense here.
 
DarkGrath said:
This really isn't enforceable as a rule. A person who makes a calc doesn't have a monopoly on the validity of that calc - two people can hypothetically entirely independently of one another calc the same feat and get the same result, and the person who made it has zero bearing on whether the result is valid.

Obviously, the relevant context here is that Vapourrr has made poor calcs for TR, and we've seen that Vapourrr is using sockpuppet accounts to continue interacting with the wiki, thereby making more poor calcs. But that just means we need to get rid of the sockpuppets if/when they appear, and to reject the calcs as we would with any other invalid calc. If, hypothetically, Vapourr on a sockpuppet account made an entirely valid calc, and someone reposted that calc verbatim on the wiki after they were banned, rejecting that calc purely on the basis of who originally made it would be completely unreasonable.

Just keep an eye out for more sockpuppets and reject bad calcs as always. There is no need to single out Vapourrr.
Click to expand...
Valid or not, Vapourrr shouldn't even be able to get calcs added onto the wiki via proxy.

If people want to make TR calcs, go ahead. But if they have any connection whatsoever to Vapourrr (DMs, known associate, same Discord server, etc.), they should be barred from ever making TR calcs.

Like the man is permabanned. On principle he should have nothing to do with this site and we should not encourage any sort of loophole.
 
I think that is far too extreme. He's banned from participating on the wiki directly, so sockpuppets and calcs posted directly by him are a no, but you're proposing we essentially ban members from interacting with someone off site. Which is a definite overreach. If our memebers choose to interact with someone off site, as long as they're not also repeating that same banned behavior we have no right to punish them. If the math is good and the scaling is supported, the calcs should be just fine. If any of those aren't good, then we toss out those calcs for those reasons not because a banned member helped in their creation.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
Fujiwara: Seems definitely in poor taste, I'd support a warning.

Funny Valentine Thread: I agreed elsewhere that it's suspicious and might be an indicator of something but on its own is not a violation nor worthy of actual action.

Veronica: Violating a topic ban is grounds to have said ban extended, makes sense to me. Further infractions should warrant outright ban time, however.
Click to expand...
This seems fine to me btw.
 
I have to disagree with Hollow's ban.

Let's take Cyber_VERGIL, for example. We couldn't prove the IPs matched, but they had shared accounts, moments of dropping the persona, and stories that don't make sense/have holes in them. That's somewhat substantial evidence, and even then not everyone was entirely comfortable with it.

Hollow and Vapourrr just share somewhat similar interests (I say somewhat because they've only shown genuine interest in like 3 verses), a mercurial personality, parlance and probably a brain cell. Even their calc layouts for the same verse aren't similar.

If you really think he's guilty already, give him time to incriminate yet again.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I don't necessarily blame people who expect a greater amount of indications, but at some point "the unfortunate new user who is friends with Vapourrrrr and Cloud and calcs TR and has an aggression issue, mistakenly believed to be one of their many socks" becomes much like "the boy who cried wolf" to me.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
one feels
Click to expand...
See, this is my problem here, 'feels'. Not really anything substantial.

Also, Vapourrrr's last blog was August 2nd.
Mr._Bambu said:
There is evidence to be seen here
Click to expand...
I mean you're not technically wrong, as minimal it is, but my point is that this isn't anything close to hard evidence, let alone proof.
Mr._Bambu said:
a direct correlation between the two
Click to expand...
Half of the One Piece discussion thread are in discord group, and the one who admitted to even having the direct correlation in the first place was Hollow.
 
ByAsura said:
See, this is my problem here, 'feels'. Not really anything substantial.
Click to expand...
Do you think he hasn't had enough time to adapt his behavior? How many socks deep is the man, now? It's a turn of phrase, Asura.

I mean you're not technically wrong, as minimal it is, but my point is that this isn't anything close to hard evidence, let alone proof.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid we're often left to speculate on such things, yes. Before proper IP checking this was in fact all we had to work with, barring an outright confession. We still work with it often, given the prevalence of VPNs. What do you suggest we do for evidence, send out the SWAT teams?

Half of the OPM discussion thread are in discord group, and the one who admitted to even having the direct correlation in the first place was Hollow.
Click to expand...
So you agree, good.
 
Again, you're talking about a span of a month or less. It's not impossible, but it's far more unlikely than you suggest.

No. I suggest we ******* wait for anything remotely substantial, since this guy has a history of self-reporting and screwing up. Like holy hell man, I know we didn't just nuke people for this little evidence back then.

Bruh. I feel like you're just ignoring my actual points.

Anyway, I'm going to bed. Frankly, this is just silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
10 11 12
Replies
454
Views
29K
GarrixianXD
GarrixianXD
Mr. Bambu
Slight Adjustment to Rules Regarding Original Works
Replies
37
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Locked
Regarding the Rule Violations Report Thread
2
Replies
71
Views
6K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
H3110l12345I20
IRL Paper has a profile.
Replies
28
Views
1K
JustANormalLemon
JustANormalLemon
DarkGrath
  • Locked
Proposal for Off-Site Rules Revision
2 3
Replies
93
Views
9K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top