- 1,506
- 544
I undid it
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.
Thanks for your hardworkI undid it
Thanks for the evaluation.It is bias/selective counting of votes. It should also be noted that the OP/Anyone can't make a claim that they debunked a point without the thread itself being finished, since the point of a CRT is to approve or disappeov of an argument.
Punish wise idk what Fuji's history is. So barring a consistent issue with the user a warning should be sufficient imo.
So it was fuji who was editing our profiles on slime huh?Thanks for the evaluation.
Rule Violation Reports (New forum)
Yhwach page was vandalized, he was changed to low 1-C, by this User whose first edit is doing that. Certainly a troll or sock, since it was a clean edit. I reverted the edits. Altho, I would keep an eye on him, he said following while processing the edit I left them a warning message...vsbattles.com
It is a fairly consistent issue. She recently got an official warning as well.
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 on slime huh?
Didn't know
Sorry about thatNo. 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.
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)
Yhwach page was vandalized, he was changed to low 1-C, by this User whose first edit is doing that. Certainly a troll or sock, since it was a clean edit. I reverted the edits. Altho, I would keep an eye on him, he said following while processing the edit I left them a warning message...vsbattles.com
It is a fairly consistent issue. She recently got an official warning as well.
Someone needs to add this to warnings tracker.Okay. A mild official warning with constructive instructions included should probably be enough then.
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.I see nothing report worthy here. Just a clueless user who might need some instructions regarding edition as they are trying to at least justify their edits but it doesn't work like this here.
Ant. Multiple admins pointed out that Fuji was explicitly in the wrong here. WDYM by confusion and misunderstanding?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.
Based on the thread linked above, I agree more with Dread. Elizhaa iirc has on multiple occasions agreed with DMC remaining Tier 1. Also, agreeing with some points and or a premise =/= agreeing with the outcome. While it could be more of a misunderstanding rather than a "Vote manipulation" I also do agree with Dread to not include Elizhaa's vote.
Regarding this: Elizhaa has the role they do because they are trusted within this community to lend judgement on threads. It is not the right of any given individual to discount that because they do not feel comfortable with the level of statement Elizhaa gave in giving this judgement. That is not to say that every staff member is right inherently, but it is not up to you, Fuji, to decide that Elizhaa's vote is to be discounted.
I agree that Elizhaa should elaborate more if prompted- after all, there must be substantiation to this trust we give to our staff. Faith, in this instance, requires evidence, and if staff members can't at least prop up their stances a little, then that raises concern. But Fuji would still seem to be in the wrong here.
It is bias/selective counting of votes. It should also be noted that the OP/Anyone can't make a claim that they debunked a point without the thread itself being finished, since the point of a CRT is to approve or disappeov of an argument.
Punish wise idk what Fuji's history is. So barring a consistent issue with the user a warning should be sufficient imo.
Okay. Is any staff member here willing to give them a proper warning please?Ant. Multiple admins pointed out that Fuji was explicitly in the wrong here. WDYM by confusion and misunderstanding?
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 |...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.
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.User's history
@Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara (aka @FujiwaraYesMokou)
@PrinceofPein (aka Pain_to12)
- Report by @Malomtek personal accusatory statements official warning | Nov 23, 2021
- After long derailing discussion 2 weeks suggested, but it was given last chance to behave | nov 24, 2021
- Official Announcement by @Bambu Touhou Topic Ban for 2 months till Feb. 14, 2022 (CRTs & Versus Threads) | Dec 15, 2021
- Report by @Malomtek insulting official warning | Oct 28, 2021
- @Starter_Pack dropped a final warning on Fuji due to long history with @Malomtek | Feb 16, 2022
- Report by @Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara against Malomtekwhich turned to be included in punishment official warning | Mar 4, 2022
- Note that perm-ban was also an option by multiple administrators regarding her unimproved behavior
- Report by @Shmooply personal attacks and aggressiveness official warning | Jun 4, 2022
- Report by @Malomtek inappropriate sarcastic joke official warning | May 24, 2022
- Report by @Malomtek arrogant, passive-aggressive behavior dismissed and verbal warning | Jul 16, 2022
- Report by @Tatsumi504 editing profile with no accepted CRT dismissed | May 22, 2023
- Report by @ImmortalDread incendiary title and disrespectful and rude behavior official warning | Jun 25, 2023
- Report by @Eficiente defamatory statements dismissed but also verbal warning | Jul 12, 2023
- Report by @CloverDragon03 hostility dismissed | Jul 19, 2023
- Recent verbal warning by @Qawsedf234 and @Deagonx | Jul 28, 2023
- Report by @ImmortalDread hostility and toxicity official warning | Sept 19, 2023
I excluded the wiki warnings since they are not relevant to the current discussion.
- Report by @joshpiece insulting remarks verbal warning | Jun 11, 2021
- Report by @Shmooply insults and toxicity official warning | Jun 4, 2022
- Report by @ImmortalDread negativity and toxicity closed the thread | Feb 26, 2023
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 don't disagree, but it appears this isn't the first time he has done this iirc.
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.So what should we do in thIs case then?
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...vsbattles.com
THREAD:
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.vsbattles.com
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...vsbattles.com
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.vsbattles.com
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.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.
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.I don't see any reason not to count the votes if they address the same issue and are from a recent CRT.
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.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.
I have no idea why I am being dragged into this drama lolI 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.
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.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.
Abstractions was never against the "at least", they were against the resistance to power nullification.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.
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.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.
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 youAbstraction 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.
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.votes that would go against the stance on another Bill upgrade matter of the previous thread.
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.I have no idea why I am being dragged into this drama lol
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.Abstractions was never against the "at least", they were against the resistance to power nullification.
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.And the same Abstractions that I did say in my report was discussing with you
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.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.