Jozaysmith?
He/Him- 2,420
- 530
Thanks for your hardwork
-
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
- 18,393
- 14,323
Thanks for the evaluation.
Rule Violation Reports (New forum)
I'd advocate for a permaban. Dude just seems like a troll
It is a fairly consistent issue. She recently got an official warning as well.
Jozaysmith?
He/Him- 2,420
- 530
So it was fuji who was editing our profilesThanks for the evaluation.
Rule Violation Reports (New forum)
I'd advocate for a permaban. Dude just seems like a trollvsbattles.com
It is a fairly consistent issue. She recently got an official warning as well.
on slime huh?Didn't know
- 1,938
- 3,455
No. It is a different report unrelated to the slime issue. In any case, not to mini-mod, but you shouldn't make comments like this on the RVR thread.So it was fuji who was editing our profiles
Didn't know
Jozaysmith?
He/Him- 2,420
- 530
Sorry about that
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,455
If you'll notice, most of these reports in recent history were dismissed because they were overreactions. Calling a bunch of fraudulent reports a "consistent issue" is disingenuous.Thanks for the evaluation.
Rule Violation Reports (New forum)
I'd advocate for a permaban. Dude just seems like a troll
It is a fairly consistent issue. She recently got an official warning as well.
Ofc the Malomtek stuff is it's own thing that's been resolved for a while now.
- 7,904
- 14,966
I think categories of behavior issues should be viewed mostly independently. If Fuji made bad edits, for instance, I wouldn't see past warnings for insults as contributing to a harsher punishment for bad edits. Similarly here, I don't know of Fuji having a history of being uncooperative about staff voting outside of this instance, and while we have determined that her reasoning for doing does not pass inspection, I do not believe she was acting in bad faith and her reasoning for doing so was based on a premise she found logical. Some non-punitive corrective guidance is all that is needed here, IMO.
- 18,393
- 14,323
Someone needs to add this to warnings tracker.
- 168,519
- 77,239
- Thread starter
- #22,810
Well, I am not sure if even a mild warning is necessary, as it was likely a misunderstanding on Fujiwara's part. The issue is more that her hot temper has apparently resulted in quite a lot of reported incidents here.
GarrixianXD
University Enthusiast
Any/AllVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Thread Moderator
Translation Helper
- 4,917
- 11,300
Reporting user @Fallen_Angelicx for applying an unaccepted CRT
vsbattles.fandom.com
https://vsbattles.com/threads/wang-ling-downgrades.158496/page-2#post-6044059 (Thread hasn't undergone any staff approval)
Wang Ling (Donghua)
Wang Ling (王令Wáng Lìng?) is a character from The Daily Life of the Immortal King. He is a non-talkative individual who’s obsessed with being average and not standing out. He tries to stay away from troublesome matters but yet happens to get involved in them somehow. Due to these situations, Wang...
vsbattles.fandom.com
https://vsbattles.com/threads/wang-ling-downgrades.158496/page-2#post-6044059 (Thread hasn't undergone any staff approval)
GarrixianXD
University Enthusiast
Any/AllVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Thread Moderator
Translation Helper
- 4,917
- 11,300
Reporting user Sillyfox0 for the unfaithful edits they've done.
vsbattles.fandom.com
vsbattles.fandom.com
Though I don't think they were deliberately vandalizing, however, we've already given them editing instructions and if they're still making edits like that then action might need to be taken.
Barbarian King
The Barbarian King is a hero in Clash of Clans. He's basically a larger, stronger Barbarian. He is automatically summoned once the Barbarian King Altar is constructed. We also have the option to equip Pets to fight alongside The Barbarian King helping him take down enemies. Tier: At least 8-B |...
vsbattles.fandom.com
Archer Queen
The Archer Queen is a hero in Clash of Clans. She is basically a larger, stronger Archer. She is automatically summoned once the Archer Queen Altar is constructed. Tier: At least 8-B | At least 8-B, likely higher Key: Level 1 | Max Level Name: Archer Queen Origin: Clash of Clans Gender: Female...
vsbattles.fandom.com
Though I don't think they were deliberately vandalizing, however, we've already given them editing instructions and if they're still making edits like that then action might need to be taken.
GarrixianXD
University Enthusiast
Any/AllVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Thread Moderator
Translation Helper
- 4,917
- 11,300
I already left them instructions. They've been warned about making unfaithful edits before nonetheless, so just a heads up. If they aren't screwing up anything anymore then feel free to call off the case.
- 32,835
- 38,111
Ant. Multiple admins pointed out that Fuji was explicitly in the wrong here. WDYM by confusion and misunderstanding?
- 168,519
- 77,239
- Thread starter
- #22,817
Okay. Is any staff member here willing to give them a proper warning please?
- 31,637
- 34,660
I don't disagree, but it appears this isn't the first time he has done this iirc.Reporting user Sillyfox0 for the unfaithful edits they've done.
Barbarian King
The Barbarian King is a hero in Clash of Clans. He's basically a larger, stronger Barbarian. He is automatically summoned once the Barbarian King Altar is constructed. We also have the option to equip Pets to fight alongside The Barbarian King helping him take down enemies. Tier: At least 8-B |...
Archer Queen
The Archer Queen is a hero in Clash of Clans. She is basically a larger, stronger Archer. She is automatically summoned once the Archer Queen Altar is constructed. Tier: At least 8-B | At least 8-B, likely higher Key: Level 1 | Max Level Name: Archer Queen Origin: Clash of Clans Gender: Female...
Though I don't think they were deliberately vandalizing, however, we've already given them editing instructions and if they're still making edits like that then action might need to be taken.
Quoting that mainly as the warning tracker. But I agree that all of the Malomtek stuff is outdated because one, he is permanently banned now + he was the real offender in most cases. Though, this comment while containing some reasonable criticisms is really not a good method. And the DMC thread does have a lot of condescending remarks on her end. And many agree excluding staff members who clearly voted against it does not sit right.
- 11,386
- 19,976
I would call this case settled, i gave them proper instructions and they are now doing a CRT for all the changes they wanted to do.
I'm replying about Sillyfox's case not fujiwara.
- 18,393
- 14,323
A formal official warning is deemed appropriate in this case (as three administrator has accepted my report to be valid). I am not advocating for a temporary ban or any such measure.
My objective is to foster an environment where users feel at ease participating in discussions with her. In all seriousness, her demeanor tends to be excessively confrontational and aggressive, which has resulted in others feeling disinclined to engage with her.
Magicomethkuon
They/Them- 1,308
- 1,424
I'd like to make a report on StrymULTRA on the grounds of Vote Manipulation.
Recently, the character Bill Cipher had a revision thread for his Tier.
Finally, today, Strym refuses to count any of the votes from the previous thread in regards to Bill's tiering, claiming that because staff didn't write their votes verbatim the way he wants, then it doesn't constitute disagreement with his proposed tiering. He refuses to count any of the votes that resulted in the thread agreement (Low 2-C, possibly 2-A). A thread that was concluded this monday.
This is all extremely partial behaviour and invalidates the discussion as a whole.
Recently, the character Bill Cipher had a revision thread for his Tier.
The result agreed upon was Low 2-C, possibly 2-A. A potential At Least was brought up multiple times through the thread, but no votes or staff members included it in their votes. At the very end of this CRT Strym added the At Least to the profile on his own nonetheless, but it was brought to attention that this part of it wasn't something anyone agreed to. Staff member @Maverick_Hunter_X properly removed it. It can be seen through multiple replies what the consensus was and that staff was aware of it.Welcome to Pagemageddon! Bill Cipher Rework.
But why would he be referring to the entire Gravity Falls cosmology when referring to existence? There are many statements of characters stating they would destroy all of existence in Marvel and DC, yet never automatically assume they're referring to the entire cosmology unless there's very...
Nonetheless, Strym has immediately afterwards created a new thread, the title of which mentions Bill's abilities. Not only does the thread make no mention at all of tiering in its title (only within, in the description), a staff member who was present in the previous thread (@Abstractions) advised Strym to not try and hop from one thread to another proposing things that were rejected in a previous one again.Bill Cipher Rework: Part 2 (Abilities + stuff)
Ye, but why would he get NEP for a soul and mind when he has (or I guess is) em? Because of the "everything he is he is also not" thing.
Talking with Strym, Abstraction extensively explains how this is happening multiple times. There's also Strym ignoring context of or not mentioning votes that would go against the stance on another Bill upgrade matter of the previous thread.Bill Cipher Rework: Part 2 (Abilities + stuff)
So, Bill just got back his glory from getting both the lowest and highest end possible of Tier 2 after this long long thread, so time to make the sequel. A SMALL NOTE: PLEASE TALK ONLY ABOUT THESE TOPICS WITHOUT DERAILING ANYTHING, AS I DON'T WANT THIS TO BECOMES ANOTHER 4+ LONG PAGE MESS...
Finally, today, Strym refuses to count any of the votes from the previous thread in regards to Bill's tiering, claiming that because staff didn't write their votes verbatim the way he wants, then it doesn't constitute disagreement with his proposed tiering. He refuses to count any of the votes that resulted in the thread agreement (Low 2-C, possibly 2-A). A thread that was concluded this monday.
Finally, Strym adopted a mocking stance about the idea and refuses to accept or count the votes that are going against his. In other words, he is ignoring every vote in the previous thread, starting another with the exact same arguments that didn't warrant the upgrade and counting only the two staff votes done in it so far, one of them by @Maverick_Zero_X. A staff member who agreed with the removal of proposals that weren't accepted, reason why I asked to confirm the view.Bill Cipher Rework: Part 2 (Abilities + stuff)
Ye, but why would he get NEP for a soul and mind when he has (or I guess is) em? Because of the "everything he is he is also not" thing.
This is all extremely partial behaviour and invalidates the discussion as a whole.
Last edited:
- 1,526
- 553
- 15,443
- 7,154
I literally don't see how is this vote manipulation. I made the CRT to re-propose the "At least" and the other abilities Maverick removed, which they literally approved of when I said it, and in the new CRT (which was called abilities + stuff to cover both the "at least" and the extraordinary genius ratings), and the staff in my CRT literally agreed with everything in OP, including the "At least" stuff.
Ergo I don't literally see the point of this, I called you desperate because of you already stonewalling against Bill getting 2-A, so I had the feeling you were just arguing against Bill just for the sake of it like other users who openly were salty over Bill's upgrade CRT were doing there (and I am not kidding).
Ergo I don't literally see the point of this, I called you desperate because of you already stonewalling against Bill getting 2-A, so I had the feeling you were just arguing against Bill just for the sake of it like other users who openly were salty over Bill's upgrade CRT were doing there (and I am not kidding).
Last edited:
Magicomethkuon
They/Them- 1,308
- 1,424
The OP has the point of this. Every vote from the previous thread that did not agree with nor include the proposed at least rating is being ignored as if it never existed. A proposed rating that was discussed in it. It is very partial to ignore all the votes about the same subject, under the same proposed arguments, after creating a new thread and including the proposal in it again. Amongst many others as a footnote. There was agreement of making a new thread about things that weren't decided in the one before, ergo, abilities and haxes. Tier ratings were discussed and decided.
But RVR is less for debating this between you and me and more for staff to judge the situation. Which is why I tried to discuss this in the thread before taking it here.
- 15,443
- 7,154
The "at least" part wasn't debated at all, it was one of the things removed due to it not being evaluated from staff, it wasn't rejected as you imply, hence why it was removed then remade
- 7,904
- 14,966
I don't see any reason not to count the votes if they address the same issue and are from a recent CRT. Though I am not sure to what extent we would respond to something like that. I will say, however, both Strym and Shion come off terribly in both of these threads in terms of routinely mocking people for disagreeing with them.
- 15,443
- 7,154
You misunderstand. There was explicitly no disagreement at all against an "At least", it was removed from @Maverick_Zero_X because of it being added in the first CRT AFTER the tiering consensus, as the reasons to give an at least simply didn't receive an agreement, but not even a disagreement.
However, I already told that I'd argue the "at least" stuff, and Maverick herself was ok with such thread despite her removing it, and she later agreed with it.
I was never ignoring any disagreement against the "at least", simply because there weren't at all.
Last edited:
- 7,904
- 14,966
Disagreeing with you is not the same as misunderstanding the situation. I am already aware of your defense, you did not need to repeat yourself.
ShionAH
He/Him- 17,386
- 5,432
I have no idea why I am being dragged into this drama lol
When a thread is 8 pages you kinda see everyone started getting frustrated at eachother which is natural. I apologize if I hurt anyone’s feelings though!
- 31,637
- 34,660
While I did just notice "At least" wasn't agreed upon in the previous thread; it did make the tier look weird. Plus some people who disagreed the first time later agreed in the new thread; it's possible they forgot about it and honestly, unless the 2-A side was removed, I don't see why Low 2-C wouldn't have an At least behind it.
It is also important to note that opinions change from time to time if they either find something new or reread some details that were overlooked the first time. While I'm not sure about the powers and abilities entirely, it seems the parts that were disagreed the 1st time have been switched to agree. Or at least some of them. The Abstractions' concerns may have been valid points however.
- 15,443
- 7,154
Abstractions was never against the "at least", they were against the resistance to power nullification.
So I think that either @Magicomethkuon straight up lied or (hopefully) they simply mixed up things by accident.
Magicomethkuon
They/Them- 1,308
- 1,424
Here, I'd just like a transparent vote count. If other staff or users decide to change their viewpoint or confirm it, they are of course welcome to do so and I will have nothing to say on the subject matter. My concern here is that the votes as stated prior are being ignored. It's the exact same topic, and in spite of Strym's persistent claiming here that it wasn't, the at least was something everyone was aware of and did not agree upon.
I don't disregard the possibility that they missed it somewhere yes. But likewise I don't think it's grounds to invalidate their every vote without confirming such a thing based on that assumption. Unless they actively appear or are contacted for input different from what they voted, it is fair to count votes as they were.
You mean the same Abstractions who voted Low 2-C, possibly 2-A in the last thread. And the same Abstractions that I did say in my report was discussing with you
Slow down with the assumptions on my person. I'm not here to kill my own reputation as much as I am asking for a transparent, true result to something that many users took time out of their day to discuss.
- 7,904
- 14,966
You aren't being dragged into it, you participated in it and contributed to it. Both of you received warnings for hostility in the initial thread, and I don't think the behavior improved that much after the warning, either. Don't do that in the future, people are allowed to disagree with you and have a right to not be mocked or insulted for doing so.
- 31,637
- 34,660
Yeah, power Null was what a lot of people were against. And that was originally Maverick who disagreed with At Least but then changed iirc.
- 15,443
- 7,154
But they never disagreed with "At least" nor discussed with me about it, they just ignored it as they were focused about talking with @ShionAH.
Magicomethkuon
They/Them- 1,308
- 1,424
Then count the last input made. If Abstractions later changes the stance that is fine and a right. But if someone doesn't say anything new on a stance that was very recent and cast a vote, what was said is their stance. Not that it never existed. It is the same for all other votes in the first thread.
- 15,443
- 7,154
You treat the "never said" as "disagreed with", which is obviously false. I don't know why you're interpreting it like this, it was disagreed only from you and none else.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Featured
- Locked
