Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,455
Since I was very clearly reported on the basis of a standard that doesn't even exist, can we drop this now? Thanks.
-
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
- 32,835
- 38,111
You weren't reported just on the basis of accusing me, but of mocking people as well.
So even if the standard side of things has been handled, your behavior-related side of things hasn't. So that needs to be addressed.
- 7,904
- 14,966
Regarding the comment linked and other earlier comments, I don't think it is much of an issue. Sure the "job" comment was a bit mean, but there were other earlier comments back and forth of similar levels of rudeness made against Fuji, and I am not inclined to take action against the second comment, because, well, what Fuji said was right. She was rudely chastised about a policy that doesn't actually exist. My vote is against taking action here, I think there is plenty of blame to go around about the situation in that thread.
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Username OnlyVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Translation Helper
- 3,256
- 3,961
Same.
- 18,393
- 14,323
I'm uncertain about the source of the claim that having three staff members ensures the implementation of any changes. In our discussions, Ant and I never reached a consensus on this matter. We agreed that a minimum of three staff members is required for such discussions, but it does not guarantee any approval.
And a new staff discussion is not required because you can't give a specific value (number of required staff members) to those type of threads since they always depend on the controversy and the momentary sufficiency, which is handled on a case-by-case basis.
This can't be dismissed. I specifically created this to not interpret it as a pass guarantee. And the red line specifically states a sufficient amount of approval is required.
And a new staff discussion is not required because you can't give a specific value (number of required staff members) to those type of threads since they always depend on the controversy and the momentary sufficiency, which is handled on a case-by-case basis.
Last edited:
- 18,393
- 14,323
Why is this my post deleted? I am the one who created this rule (with support of Ant and Crab), and it is relevant to the discussion (it is part of the report).
Lephy is not mistaken at his post, and the rule is not even made up.
Edit: Thanks to @Planck69 for restoring my post.
Last edited:
- 7,904
- 14,966
Discussion of the vote rule will take place elsewhere, as the minutia are largely irrelevant to the matter at hand. It will not play a significant role in determining punitive action here, and if more clarity is needed that can take place in a different thread. For now we will wait for other mods/admins to give their assessment on the report.
- 7,904
- 14,966
Fuji is being reported for rudeness, it's not prudent to make RVR a venue for debating interpretations of the policy. Even if we were to conclude Fuji (and thus, by extension, myself) were wrong about it, it wouldn't have a large impact on determining punishment. The comments should be removed and we should focus on providing assessments of whether Fuji's behavior crossed a line into warning/punishment territory.
But if we are going to discuss it, then I maintain my stance that the policy is very specific about a three vote minimum, and the latter half of the policy is too vague to determine what impact -- if any -- it would have on a given revision. "It may be advisable to involve as many staff members as possible" doesn't really do anything for us here.
- 10,541
- 12,354
Sigh
For clarification (since people like to speak for me instead of asking me first), when I've said tier 1 threads require from 5-7 staff participation, is a combination from experience on these threads, as well as a general "feel" for how to moderate them based on the existing rule. While not a strict requirement based on the current ruling (that frankly doesn't do a nice job in this area, but we work with what we have), it is to me a fair application of it. (And I have stressed that in the tier 1 threads I've participated, that this simply is how I implement the rule, to be as fair as possible)
For clarification (
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Username OnlyVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Translation Helper
- 3,256
- 3,961
I made a staff discussion to resolve this issue about Tier 1 and Tier 0 threads: https://vsbattles.com/threads/clari...ary-to-approve-tier-1-and-0-revisions.159904/.
- 13,328
- 21,295
I think it’s also worth mentioning that Fuji’s been reported for similar behavior earlier in the same thread and was warned for it
MorrisHatesYou
Username Only- 698
- 384
I initially didn't wanna make this report because the user in question is heavily trusted and fans of the verse I'm advocating for are seen as the bad guys, but it is really important so let me give it a try.
Reporting @Zefra3011 for being malicious and inconsistent towards Tokyo Revengers ratings.
1) Zefra tried to remove Izana's bullet feat in this thread which was dedicated to remove other feats. Firstly, he didn't even know the full context of the feat he was trying to debunk.
I explained the entire context which he never knew about beforehand, the feat is about Izana body moving on its own. I explained how the gunshot is the trigger to his movement, he made another point for the trigger to just to be aim-dodging, which is rather baseless. I explained how that just does not make any sense. He couldn't refute any of the points I presented.
He ended up saying the feat is not for the CRT (Like what? You are the one who literally brought it up dude).
And later he made a staff thread about Tokyo Revengers calcs (my god, the feat isn't one of those feats which got completely rejected), and brought up the context which I came up with, twisting the trigger for movement of the trigger to his favour, trying to make it aim-dodging, even when he can't refute my arguments, he doesn't even put out my argument there.
All of that for my reasoning to be re-accepted when I made another thread and another user who's more trusted than me brought up my exact points.
2) He argued against the idea that Mikey's casual kicks are subsonic in one of previous threads, saying that the only time Mikey is subsonic is against Taiju and his other kicks are just barely superhuman, he doesn't want to budge from that idea, he even complained that there are no calcs about Mikey literally disappearing from sight (which is him directly referencing Mikey kicking Taiju).
Only for that opinion to completely change after the flicker fusion threshold is introduced, using 1/500th of a second for blitzing feats where the attack is completely invisible, which the Mikey kicking Taiju feat completely fits.
He said things like "the kick isn't faster than any other kick", "only Taiju is stated to disappear from sight, not Mikey", (How does this logic even add up? Mikey completely slammed Taiju to the ground, how can his speed be slower than Taiju's body moving?), "I wouldn't even take the word as it is".
I find it hilarious how all of these are after the new timeframe is introduced.
Inconsistency at it's finest.
3) There is this new rule named "evading punches", TLDR: According to the rule, when when a character dodges an attack from another character who is comparable to himself/herself/themselves, and the calculation results in the character dodging the attack being several faster than the character who attacks, the feat should be deemed invalid.
In this Tokyo Revengers thread, Zefra made a point to invalidate a feat, based on the person who dodges the attack calling the other person "fast".
The boxer is Zefra's favourite verse (or atleast favourite Tier 9-8 verse). This thread is dedicated to remove a feat from the boxer verse. DarkTriadz made a point about how it falls to "evading punches" rule in the last page, the feat appears to be far more severe than the other Tokyo Revengers feat since the guy who blocks the attack explicitly states "I think you've become a bit too strong" while literally bleeding.
Unlike Tokyo Revengers calc, he went with the best case scenario to validate the feat (even when the assumption is more far-fetched).
And he only reported DarkTriadz right after he gave the OP an argument which solidly debunks the feat, I don't support or even know the banned guy (I even think he's an alt, I just don't talk about it), but the fact that the report was right after the guy gave the OP a solid debunk makes me feel iffy.
I wanted to point this out since I'm not comfortable with his inconsistency on how he treats Tokyo Revengers calcs and the verse he likes the most.
If anyone don't mind, I'm gonna add the feat to list of flawed feats I have in mind which I plan to make threads on.
Reporting @Zefra3011 for being malicious and inconsistent towards Tokyo Revengers ratings.
1) Zefra tried to remove Izana's bullet feat in this thread which was dedicated to remove other feats. Firstly, he didn't even know the full context of the feat he was trying to debunk.
I explained the entire context which he never knew about beforehand, the feat is about Izana body moving on its own. I explained how the gunshot is the trigger to his movement, he made another point for the trigger to just to be aim-dodging, which is rather baseless. I explained how that just does not make any sense. He couldn't refute any of the points I presented.
He ended up saying the feat is not for the CRT (Like what? You are the one who literally brought it up dude).
And later he made a staff thread about Tokyo Revengers calcs (my god, the feat isn't one of those feats which got completely rejected), and brought up the context which I came up with, twisting the trigger for movement of the trigger to his favour, trying to make it aim-dodging, even when he can't refute my arguments, he doesn't even put out my argument there.
All of that for my reasoning to be re-accepted when I made another thread and another user who's more trusted than me brought up my exact points.
2) He argued against the idea that Mikey's casual kicks are subsonic in one of previous threads, saying that the only time Mikey is subsonic is against Taiju and his other kicks are just barely superhuman, he doesn't want to budge from that idea, he even complained that there are no calcs about Mikey literally disappearing from sight (which is him directly referencing Mikey kicking Taiju).
Only for that opinion to completely change after the flicker fusion threshold is introduced, using 1/500th of a second for blitzing feats where the attack is completely invisible, which the Mikey kicking Taiju feat completely fits.
He said things like "the kick isn't faster than any other kick", "only Taiju is stated to disappear from sight, not Mikey", (How does this logic even add up? Mikey completely slammed Taiju to the ground, how can his speed be slower than Taiju's body moving?), "I wouldn't even take the word as it is".
I find it hilarious how all of these are after the new timeframe is introduced.
Inconsistency at it's finest.
3) There is this new rule named "evading punches", TLDR: According to the rule, when when a character dodges an attack from another character who is comparable to himself/herself/themselves, and the calculation results in the character dodging the attack being several faster than the character who attacks, the feat should be deemed invalid.
In this Tokyo Revengers thread, Zefra made a point to invalidate a feat, based on the person who dodges the attack calling the other person "fast".
The boxer is Zefra's favourite verse (or atleast favourite Tier 9-8 verse). This thread is dedicated to remove a feat from the boxer verse. DarkTriadz made a point about how it falls to "evading punches" rule in the last page, the feat appears to be far more severe than the other Tokyo Revengers feat since the guy who blocks the attack explicitly states "I think you've become a bit too strong" while literally bleeding.
Unlike Tokyo Revengers calc, he went with the best case scenario to validate the feat (even when the assumption is more far-fetched).
And he only reported DarkTriadz right after he gave the OP an argument which solidly debunks the feat, I don't support or even know the banned guy (I even think he's an alt, I just don't talk about it), but the fact that the report was right after the guy gave the OP a solid debunk makes me feel iffy.
I wanted to point this out since I'm not comfortable with his inconsistency on how he treats Tokyo Revengers calcs and the verse he likes the most.
If anyone don't mind, I'm gonna add the feat to list of flawed feats I have in mind which I plan to make threads on.
- 7,904
- 14,966
Morris, this sort of thing really isn't actionable. Your belief that his arguments are not consistent or that you believe he's not being fair to the verse isn't really something that should be brought to RVR unless it surpasses a pretty extreme and overt threshold of acting in bad faith, which this certainly doesn't.
MorrisHatesYou
Username Only- 698
- 384
My apologies, I'm just uncomfortable with how his takes always somehow matches the worst possible outcome and how he twisted the thing I came up to his favour to give a verse lower rating (the argument being really bad even 12yo would understand it), just for it to get accepted once a more reputable user than me re-mentions what I said.
- 18,393
- 14,323
Bump, adding this that she is still with this excessive attitude.
I am waiting how many strikes she can get till someone take a serious action on this behaviour, or we are simply getting weekly case version 2.
- 18,664
- 18,751
I cannot say I have full experience with her to compare her to Weekly, but I echo Dread's sentiments. She has 2 official warnings, another report today and is seemingly attempting to apply changes at the say-so of a single moderator endorsement despite several other staff deciding otherwise.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,455
I have two staff saying it's fine, actually. And a 5-2 vote total. There is no reason for a report here, and honestly at this point I'm inclined to believe that these reports are simply out of spite.
- 18,664
- 18,751
You have yet to address the fact that you counted a non-evaluating staff as a vote and that one of the other votes (Qawsedf234) wasn't even a vote so much as a "this looks good but I'll wait and see" type post. But fine, let's assume you didn't misrepresent the vote count, that it's actually 5-2 entirely for the sake of argument.
One of those votes came in today, so you can't actually claim the discussion was dead and done, you've outright admitted to being willing to apply changes against the contention of 2 other thread moderators and more than 4 staff in total, on top of your prior offenses and you've made egregious accusations and passive-aggressive remarks not just on that thread but in this one too.
This is a problem and one that's apparently been ongoing with you in regards to this verse specifically for a while.
- 7,904
- 14,966
Both myself and Lawyer gave her a go-ahead, because the amount of staff votes is enough for the thread to pass. However, it's not so much about my go ahead or anyone elses, so much as it is about our policy on passing revisions.
Actually, two of those votes came in today. Mine and yours. When the report was made against her the vote was 4-1.
- 10,541
- 12,354
Can you actually stop antagonizing people for once? You very well know all of these small comments are entirely unneeded, are clogging the thread and don't even add anything. This is a formal warning now, not just for you, but for everyone else that keeps derailing the thread. I will delete comments from here on out.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,455
I was going to remove that vote, but haven't had the opportunity to do so yet because I AM AT WORK.
- 18,664
- 18,751
Lawyer. Can't. Evaluate. I can't speak for a Content Moderator's authority in allowing changes to the profiles but they don't have the authority to give a CRT the go-ahead. You gave her a go ahead that both me and LephyrTheRevanchist denied (Clover and KLOL too but I guess you should only count moderators).
Even better then. An ongoing CRT was being rapidly pushed by yours truly to be added. Against the say-so of myself and Lephyr. And how she was willing to entirely ignore two mods, accuse one of vote tampering and apply changes herself.
And the core issue at this point isn't even the vote count but that she pushed forward with changes that were very much contested, by staff no less.
- 7,904
- 14,966
I'm not claiming he can or could. Lawyer's vote was never counted in the numeric tally that has been discussed here.
They can unlock and open profiles, and we cannot. They're literally content moderators. That is their job.
Not rapid at all. The thread has been going on for two months and has reached 5 pages. It's only being called "rapid" in an attempt to delay it's application unnecessarily.
- 10,541
- 12,354
Alright now. Debates about whether the thread passes or not should be handled on the thread itself. Let's stick with Fuji's report and whether it's valid. Thank you all.
- 7,904
- 14,966
I've already given my opinion on the report. There was nothing wrong with Fuji's behavior insofar as the administering of the thread is concerned, but as to snide remarks I am not inclined to give a warning given how hostile the other users in the thread were also being. This wasn't merely a Fuji issue, there were several antagonistic comments towards her from various users that precipitated what I would consider relatively mild backlash from Fuji.
- 10,541
- 12,354
I do have to agree with that. That said, I personally wouldn't use it as a defense. All of them warrant a warning of some sort (and in further cases, maybe even more severe punishment, but these need to be brought up).
The thing is, Fuji knows damn well she shouldn't engage those. She knows very damn well the amount of times she's been warned, either here in this very threads and in others, for that same behavior. She's been in these forums long enough, and been in enough RVR spats to realize that engaging in that bs will get her punished.
And as I've said in the past, at some point, enough is enough. While I will not suggest any specific punishment, I would certainly support one.
- 13,328
- 21,295
Didn’t notice that we’d moved on from whether or not the thread should be passed after I’d left (it didn’t show me all the new posts for some reason), apologies.
I’d support action being taken against Fuji for her behavior given that she was already warned for it before, and in the very same thread no less
I’d support action being taken against Fuji for her behavior given that she was already warned for it before, and in the very same thread no less
- 7,904
- 14,966
I'm not inclined to agree with that perspective. I certainly don't endorse an "eye for an eye" policy, but the thread was not moderated effectively, and I am not in supporting of expecting Fuji to be a saint because she's been warned before, whilst she's being harassed and mocked by multiple other users, included one of our own staff, for the mortal sin of trying to downgrade a verse.
We expect people to be reasonable and polite, but we can't expect them to be robots. Nothing she said was serious, even by my standards. I suppose we could issue official warnings to everyone that participated in the hostilities, but I don't know how practical it would be.
We expect people to be reasonable and polite, but we can't expect them to be robots. Nothing she said was serious, even by my standards. I suppose we could issue official warnings to everyone that participated in the hostilities, but I don't know how practical it would be.
- 168,514
- 77,230
- Thread starter
- #23,512
Okay. I changed the block duration to two weeks instead.
- 168,514
- 77,230
- Thread starter
- #23,513
That is correct, yes. They were promoted because they have competently helped out with a lot of wiki cleanup, and sometimes edit-patrolling, work.
- 168,514
- 77,230
- Thread starter
- #23,514
Well, to be fair, I do not think that Fujiwara was deliberately breaking any content revision thread application rules, and she does seem to have support from a staff majority. There just seems to have been a misunderstanding combined with considerable frustration due to the discussion taking so long in that regard.
Also, what false accusation?
She does have a history of snide commentary though, but nothing particularly serious.
Regardless, I think that we should at least let her conclude, and likely apply, her current significant DMC CRT before we possibly apply any temporary block.
- 168,514
- 77,230
- Thread starter
- #23,515
That would be a mitigating circumstance, yes.
- 168,514
- 77,230
- Thread starter
- #23,516
Thank you for helping out, Bambu.
- 18,664
- 18,751
She doesn't though, and even if she did, intending to apply a CRT that's still being discussed, after 2 thread moderators said otherwise is in poor form.
Lying about the vote count, particularly to me and from what I've been told, other members earlier in the thread.
The thread's at an impasse in staff votes currently so I dunno how that will go.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 22,936
- 22,648
Regarding the 5-7 Rule: I really, really don't think anybody should be enforcing theoretical rules on major CRTs, least of all individuals with no evaluation rights. There is a reason we expect Thread Moderators and Administrators to handle threads, and that is because they have shown the capacity to handle it. @KLOL506, I don't know what happened in your GoW thread: it may be that there was a great deal of reason to propose a specific number for it, I couldn't say. However. You seem to have been totally aware that Fujiwara was correct on this front, and propagated the idea that because Lephyr applied that logic to an entirely different thread, it was therefore the truth for Fujiwara's. It is definitely plausible that this particular thread could be ruled to need a greater amount of staff input- but that should have been decided by someone in a position to do so, rather than someone wielding a past assessment like a mace. My opinion, I would've just called Lephyr there on the spot, and recognized that we typically only shoot for unique cases of higher staff counts being needed when there is a great deal of opposition in the staff ranks on either side. Now then:
Regarding Rudeness: @Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara, if there is some discussion still ongoing, it is generally against the ethos of the site to shut down all conversation by handwaving and shouting about four staff approvals. I do think you were being attacked in this thread unnecessarily, and I think there were certain unfair elements working against you. Obviously you could have been kinder and more mature about the whole thing- you're aware of the reports leveled against you, I don't need to explain the wiki's stance on your behavior. I think it is reasonable to add a warning to that counter- I would personally agree with Planck removing Qawsedf's vote (which was hardly explicit enough to be a vote, imo), you also know better than to include non-evaluating staff in vote tallies (or, at least, to represent them as proper evaluations- counting their opinions is good). I don't feel we ought to ban you- there are questionable circumstances at work here and a formal warning reminding you against this behavior may be sufficient.
Conclusion: I think Fujiwara deserves a warning. Nothing more than that. I also agree with Lephyr's assessment that others deserve a warning too- there was a great deal of provocation I saw in that thread, and given that I was pressed to read it extremely quickly, I strongly doubt I caught everything. Most of all, I think KLOL unnecessarily provoked argument by misinterpreting Lephyr's words as gospel- which seems to be a major point of contention that was extremely counterproductive for this thread. If it pleases everyone, I would like to speak with Lephyr in private about creating a wider report on other poor behavior in that thread.
Regarding Rudeness: @Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara, if there is some discussion still ongoing, it is generally against the ethos of the site to shut down all conversation by handwaving and shouting about four staff approvals. I do think you were being attacked in this thread unnecessarily, and I think there were certain unfair elements working against you. Obviously you could have been kinder and more mature about the whole thing- you're aware of the reports leveled against you, I don't need to explain the wiki's stance on your behavior. I think it is reasonable to add a warning to that counter- I would personally agree with Planck removing Qawsedf's vote (which was hardly explicit enough to be a vote, imo), you also know better than to include non-evaluating staff in vote tallies (or, at least, to represent them as proper evaluations- counting their opinions is good). I don't feel we ought to ban you- there are questionable circumstances at work here and a formal warning reminding you against this behavior may be sufficient.
Conclusion: I think Fujiwara deserves a warning. Nothing more than that. I also agree with Lephyr's assessment that others deserve a warning too- there was a great deal of provocation I saw in that thread, and given that I was pressed to read it extremely quickly, I strongly doubt I caught everything. Most of all, I think KLOL unnecessarily provoked argument by misinterpreting Lephyr's words as gospel- which seems to be a major point of contention that was extremely counterproductive for this thread. If it pleases everyone, I would like to speak with Lephyr in private about creating a wider report on other poor behavior in that thread.
- 7,904
- 14,966
Qawsedf offered a preliminary agree but said he'd wait to hear more arguments, hasn't replied again yet.
DDM agreed
Theglassman agreed but has since changed his vote to neutral pending the outcome of a discussion
I agreed
You had responded that Fuji makes sense when she explained your argument, which was interpreted as an agree.
Elizhaa disagreed
Planck disagreed
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Featured
- Locked
