-
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
- 3,293
- 1,268
All my arguments are different and use new information, the latest one uses information that this site and has never seen. If a staff accepts it, it will be a brand new argument. It's no difference between 1 user presenting 4 different arguments, and four users presenting 4 different arguments.
The lastest thread is multi CRt, for a cosmology blog and a 2B/2A arguments. It's not even purely a tier 1 thread. Focusing on the tier one aspect is unfair representation of that CRT and of me.
- 3,293
- 1,268
The last upgrade was because there was rule change and multiple fandoms pushed for tier one. Sailor Moon was not the only one. I was asked to make a cosmology blog and I did. I am not spamming threads without reason.
- 7,230
- 13,094
I think the user is fine to continue revising Sailor Moon (though I will say I have found several of their ability upgrades specious as well). It's mostly that working on high-tier cosmology matters is a time sink, and when it is with a user who refuses to capitulate to any staff member (even Ultima, DT, and Qawsedf) it becomes even more time-consuming. So I believe they should just be asked to not pursue cosmology-related matters for Sailor Moon anymore.
It's for this reason that I am less active in DC cosmology threads now. I am a bit burnt out on the constant walls-of-text and unending arguments. Further, the fact that this user is accusing multiple staff members of power abuse suggests to me that they are far too emotionally invested in this matter to be objective and reasonable, which is likely why they never stop arguing for it no matter how many disagreements it gets or how many threads get rejected.
- 19,597
- 15,957
I get that and I won't fight such a thread ban/discussion rule. I just wanted to give my input on it.
That's what I meant before. It's then not getting the system and what counts rather than just doing the same thing eight times and banking on a mod to eventually agree with them.
They are trying new things and asking questions.
- 3,293
- 1,268
I don't have to capitulate to anyone. This is a debate site. People post their opinions. People agree and disagree.
Also the fact that you yourself mentioned that all my threads bring new information, means that I listened to the verdicts of the staff on previous and old arguments. So this accusation doesn't make sense.
- 7,230
- 13,094
I feel like a broken record here.
Yes, you are entitled to your opinions, but if all of the staff members with the most amount of insight and experience with our tiering system tell you that your arguments run contrary to our standards, then that's about as close to simply being wrong as you can get. You needn't point out yet again that opinions are subjective, it doesn't really impact the point that I am making.
- 3,293
- 1,268
I said that I listened to staff's verdicts. Dropped the arguments and then moved on to find new and better material.
In the mercury thread, the staff said that I needed to find new material that expands on Mercury's attack. I listened, and only came back when I did find new material.
What you are claiming is that I don't yield to the staff verdict and that is not true.
- 3,293
- 1,268
If you are going to say that I don't listen to staff or don't take in what they say, then you need to provide evidence of that. Because I have evidence that I do. That's the last thing I will say on this matter. Do as you like, but I'll be continuing my cosmology blog crt.
- 7,230
- 13,094
You are misunderstanding me. You deciding not to pursue the upgrade under the same reasoning is not what I am referring to. It is that during the discussions themselves you never actually admit to being wrong or acknowledge what the other person is saying is correct, you more or less perpetually argue until the thread is forcibly closed and then complain that the thread is closed while you continued arguing, such as when you complained on my wall for closing your second Tier 1 upgrade after four mods had disagreed and explained to you why you were wrong.
Let me put it this way: Do you believe that you were actually wrong about any of the failed upgrade threads, and that the moderators and admins who argued against you were correct? Or did you simply choose not to attempt the upgrade again due to the fact that it had failed previously?
If the answer is no, then that is the point that I am making.
Let me put it this way: Do you believe that you were actually wrong about any of the failed upgrade threads, and that the moderators and admins who argued against you were correct? Or did you simply choose not to attempt the upgrade again due to the fact that it had failed previously?
If the answer is no, then that is the point that I am making.
- 3,231
- 7,898
Let’s not argue here and let the staff handle this.
- 3,293
- 1,268
OMG. Are you mad because I won't say I was wrong?
SO much for this then:
You are pushing a discussion rule because I think my arguments are good and disagree with verdicts? By all means go make a rule that says when a thread is rejected, the OP has to clearly state that they were wrong and the mods were right.
Please be correct. I complained because I was waiting for ultima's response to what I had to say, and you closed without warning.
See here:
I won't speak anymore because this is clearly a very personal thing and I cannot argue against that. Do as you will. If this rule goes into place, I will leave the site, because this is just beyond silly.
Last edited:
- 3,231
- 7,898
Stop arguing.
- 7,230
- 13,094
No, we've severely deviated from the point that I am making, which appears to be a common theme here, so I will repeat myself once again:
I am not suggesting that when a thread is rejected the OP must change their minds, or whatever strawman you have in your mind about what I said. However, you have sought the input of all of the most knowledgeable admins on high tier matters, including Ultima, DontTalk, and Qawsedf, as well as others. Every single one of them has told you that you are wrong. Not a single admin or thread mod across these five attempts has seen things your way.
Does this constitute objective truth? No. But if the people we trust most on this website to determine matters pertaining to high-tier cosmologies disagree with you, and explain this to you over and over again, and you walk away believing that they are the unreasonable ones and they have got it wrong, even after 5~ attempts across several threads, it is strongly indicative that you are not aligned with the websites standards and are not being altogether very reasonable.
You are entitled to your opinions, but if you refuse to learn from your mistakes or recognize that you've ever been mistaken about our standards despite all of our admins telling you so, I am not inclined to think you should be allowed to keep making Tier 1 CRTs just to perpetually argue with staff no matter how many of them tell you that you're wrong. If you want to make Iamunanimousinthat Battles Wiki and create a tiering system more inclined to your philosophy, no one is stopping you.
I am not suggesting that when a thread is rejected the OP must change their minds, or whatever strawman you have in your mind about what I said. However, you have sought the input of all of the most knowledgeable admins on high tier matters, including Ultima, DontTalk, and Qawsedf, as well as others. Every single one of them has told you that you are wrong. Not a single admin or thread mod across these five attempts has seen things your way.
Does this constitute objective truth? No. But if the people we trust most on this website to determine matters pertaining to high-tier cosmologies disagree with you, and explain this to you over and over again, and you walk away believing that they are the unreasonable ones and they have got it wrong, even after 5~ attempts across several threads, it is strongly indicative that you are not aligned with the websites standards and are not being altogether very reasonable.
You are entitled to your opinions, but if you refuse to learn from your mistakes or recognize that you've ever been mistaken about our standards despite all of our admins telling you so, I am not inclined to think you should be allowed to keep making Tier 1 CRTs just to perpetually argue with staff no matter how many of them tell you that you're wrong. If you want to make Iamunanimousinthat Battles Wiki and create a tiering system more inclined to your philosophy, no one is stopping you.
- 3,231
- 7,898
Deagon, that’s enough.
- 30,024
- 31,221
I was working a lot the past couple days combined with my having a sickness that seems to be coming and going, hence my less activity. But been trying to keep up and comment on topics that appear ongoing.
But anyway, if a user is being especially problematic on Tier 1 Sailor Moon that staff reject repeatedly and that even Ultima rejects it, I do agree it's a topic that may need to be dropped unless something very new comes along.
- 165,143
- 72,068
- Thread starter
- #24,619
@PrissyPanther wishes to appeal for leniency regarding his permanent forum ban.
vsbattles.fandom.com
@Damage3245 @DarkDragonMedeus
Antvasima
vsbattles.fandom.com
@Damage3245 @DarkDragonMedeus
- 29,782
- 24,830
The two comments he made were directed to DarkDragonMedeus, not myself.
I'll let DDM handle this case if that's alright.
I'll let DDM handle this case if that's alright.
- 7,230
- 13,094
I am skeptical of his explanation. His story reads as follows:
There's an issue here. He was reported for sockpuppeting, and it was at that point that he made the insulting remarks about tracking IPs. However, the way he tells it implies the sockpuppets were made in order to "track his ban."
This doesn't follow. He can't have made the alts after being banned for insulting DDM. He insulted DDM for reporting his alts.
He also wasn't really new to Fandom or VSBW. His PrissyPanther account was made two years before the ban, and both accounts had quite a few comments.
- 7,230
- 13,094
Many of his posts were deleted for some reason when he was banned.
- 30,024
- 31,221
The reports were May 2023; so it was merely 7 months ago rather than 2 years when he made those socks.
I do not really remember what he was like before the alts were made, but there was a contradiction if they claimed to be banned 2 years ago when it was just a little over half a year. Account may have been made 2 years ago, but that doesn't mean ban or bad contributions were made 2 years ago.
I'm neutral about giving a final chance at best, but if they blow that final chance, it's permaban with no chance of appeals. Though based on contradiction and how little they contributed before the incident, sounds pretty skeptical and lean towards keeping the ban. Though I do wonder what others think; Damage and Deagon probably agree keeping banned sounds better.
I do not really remember what he was like before the alts were made, but there was a contradiction if they claimed to be banned 2 years ago when it was just a little over half a year. Account may have been made 2 years ago, but that doesn't mean ban or bad contributions were made 2 years ago.
I'm neutral about giving a final chance at best, but if they blow that final chance, it's permaban with no chance of appeals. Though based on contradiction and how little they contributed before the incident, sounds pretty skeptical and lean towards keeping the ban. Though I do wonder what others think; Damage and Deagon probably agree keeping banned sounds better.
- 3,737
- 4,037
Sorry if I’m bringing up like “settled matters” I just wanna clarify some things in regards to the last two user reports since I was either participating in the thread or mentioned in either report and I only just saw them now.
In regards to this report of Dr.Whitee: I’m not staff right, so I don’t know the exact details of how many staff are needed to overturn a vote that some other staff disagree with, but what happened from my perspective was we argued in the CRT about a couple of abilities I found to be not well supported in the OP and a lot of staff that participated in the thread agreed with my position. Most of those abilities were removed with the exception of Void Manipulation. This ability had equal amounts of staff agreements and disagreements (I believe 3 agree and 3 disagree). There was never a formal conclusion of the thread I don’t think, it basically just died in the water as is until it was “accepted” I believe due to inactivity from the thread, which is why I mentioned that avoid manip may have been accepted but to not quote me on it.
The problem is though, from my understanding of this report, the void manipulation Dr.Whitee is referring to is not the one being contested in the abilities thread he made, but instead referring to the previous ontology thread he made, in which it’s being argued that a person’s CT has Void manip to it, however this specific notion I don’t think was ever formally discussed in the ontology thread itself (as the ontology thread was not about adding additional abilities to the characters, that was the later ability addition thread he made). And the previous logic of gaining abilities based off Buddhist ontology was heavily contested in the later thread as mentioned earlier.
I was in the thread since the beginning and @Deagonx and @ImmortalDread only said that if and after @Iamunanimousinthat newest thread concludes and if it ended in rejection, then a thread would possibly be made about a discussion rule being applied.
It was basically a polite notice informing them about the possibility of a thread like that being made after the newest thread’s conclusion. However, because Iamunanimous kept insisting that even any mention of that in their thread was “derailment” and by their own words “should be taken to another thread” @Maverick_Zero_X decided to do exactly that…and made the discussion rule thread.
It was basically a “you get what you ask for” moment, not an abuse of power or whatever by any means I don’t think.
In regards to this report of Dr.Whitee: I’m not staff right, so I don’t know the exact details of how many staff are needed to overturn a vote that some other staff disagree with, but what happened from my perspective was we argued in the CRT about a couple of abilities I found to be not well supported in the OP and a lot of staff that participated in the thread agreed with my position. Most of those abilities were removed with the exception of Void Manipulation. This ability had equal amounts of staff agreements and disagreements (I believe 3 agree and 3 disagree). There was never a formal conclusion of the thread I don’t think, it basically just died in the water as is until it was “accepted” I believe due to inactivity from the thread, which is why I mentioned that avoid manip may have been accepted but to not quote me on it.
The problem is though, from my understanding of this report, the void manipulation Dr.Whitee is referring to is not the one being contested in the abilities thread he made, but instead referring to the previous ontology thread he made, in which it’s being argued that a person’s CT has Void manip to it, however this specific notion I don’t think was ever formally discussed in the ontology thread itself (as the ontology thread was not about adding additional abilities to the characters, that was the later ability addition thread he made). And the previous logic of gaining abilities based off Buddhist ontology was heavily contested in the later thread as mentioned earlier.
I won’t say much about this other report, but I will say that this quote is an inaccurate interpretation of the events that unfolded.
I was in the thread since the beginning and @Deagonx and @ImmortalDread only said that if and after @Iamunanimousinthat newest thread concludes and if it ended in rejection, then a thread would possibly be made about a discussion rule being applied.
It was basically a polite notice informing them about the possibility of a thread like that being made after the newest thread’s conclusion. However, because Iamunanimous kept insisting that even any mention of that in their thread was “derailment” and by their own words “should be taken to another thread” @Maverick_Zero_X decided to do exactly that…and made the discussion rule thread.
It was basically a “you get what you ask for” moment, not an abuse of power or whatever by any means I don’t think.
- 4,474
- 5,713
To clarify the recent circumstances of the HR group:
ImmortalDread, our content moderator, has been issued a demotion and a 1 year ban due to rule violations that have come to light in recent events. These violations included attempting to have several members banned under false pretenses for doxxing via knowingly incorrect information, as well as engaging in catfishing for the purpose of manipulating other users. Further discussion on this topic is not permitted, and comments of this sort will be deleted.
ImmortalDread, our content moderator, has been issued a demotion and a 1 year ban due to rule violations that have come to light in recent events. These violations included attempting to have several members banned under false pretenses for doxxing via knowingly incorrect information, as well as engaging in catfishing for the purpose of manipulating other users. Further discussion on this topic is not permitted, and comments of this sort will be deleted.
- 2,288
- 1,732
I would appreciate some official clarification on this matter as to not have to fear being reported in the future as from my understandimg Void manip in said thread was passed due to grace, more admin support, and lack of counter arguments from the disagreeing mods. If I am mistaken I would like this to be clarified.
- 3,293
- 1,268
Sailor Moon! Tier One! The Ultimate Panacea!
Right. And on the other side of this vortex is a realm outside time and space. The space in the center of the vortex isn't the world on the other side, it's just the space being traversed during the process. Where is your evidence for this? This is pure conjecture on your part. You said it...
Sailor Moon! Tier One! The Ultimate Panacea!
Right. And on the other side of this vortex is a realm outside time and space. The space in the center of the vortex isn't the world on the other side, it's just the space being traversed during the process. Where is your evidence for this? This is pure conjecture on your part. You said it...
Reporting these individuals for continuing to derail my thread and continued harassments.
Mind you these are the same people constantly pushing for a discussion rule to silence me. A rule that staff have admitted is not for any rule violation.
And I will also like to provide evidence of protectusinfinity himself admitting that he has been pushing to get me banned.
(I am the person referenced with Sailor Arkham)
This entire situation is obviously been done in bad faith and is part of a targeted harassment campaign. As you are the administrators who made comments on this entire situation, please take this situation in consideration when a decision is made.
Okay then. Thank you for your evaluations.
- 1,061
- 2,436
Sigh... let me explain to staff in private when I have time.
Last edited:
- 3,231
- 7,898
No doubt they are derailing the thread, though, that accusation of yours regarding them "systematically harassing" you is quite an extrapolation. You were undoubtedly, acting incisive which might lead to other members disliking you and deeming your actions banworthy rule violations. I ultimately don't see anything there that's reportable but I agree that the derailing indeed needs to stop.
KingNanaya
He/Him- 2,635
- 3,651
other than make a very obvious joke, I really don't know what I did wrong. you can argue that one specific post was derailing, but that was the only time, and @Deagonx even confirmed that pages prior.Sailor Moon! Tier One! The Ultimate Panacea!
Right. And on the other side of this vortex is a realm outside time and space. The space in the center of the vortex isn't the world on the other side, it's just the space being traversed during the process. Where is your evidence for this? This is pure conjecture on your part. You said it...vsbattles.com
I ain't push for nothing. I just made it a point that things were getting close to a discussion rule due to you trying the same upgrade 4, now 5 times.
- 3,293
- 1,268
I won't say anything else, other than it was decided by multiple staff members that all my attempts were done with new information and different arguments and i have never remade a thread using the same arguments. I will let the staff do what they need to do.
KingNanaya
He/Him- 2,635
- 3,651
I said same upgrade, not same arguments. you have made 5 CRTs arguing for 5D sailor moon in some fashion. each time they were rejected by staff. a discussion rule was a very real possibility, and I wasn't even the one that brought it up.
and even then, I only sent the other 4 threads where you tried the 5D upgrade, and told you that people telling you that bringing up a discussion rule wasn't derailing. which staff agreed with me on
if you don't like me or my attempts at humor, fine, but don't make stuff up. you have a tendency to do that, and it's fairly annoying
- 7,230
- 13,094
Discussion rules are not created in response to rule violations.
- 3,293
- 1,268
sigh
I did not say that discussion rules are only for rule violations. Even right after I have repeated again that I did not violate rules, this was posted:
No disrespect to Garrian, I am sure you didn't mean to insinuate that I did break violations (as I didn't bother comment), but there is a reason why I like to keep repeating.
- 3,231
- 7,898
I haven't inspected concisely enough through the thread so I can't make a judgement. However, I can completely understand how you feel.
- 165,143
- 72,068
- Thread starter
- #24,639
Well, trying to derail Iam's discussion threads is not acceptable (although I don't think that posting single rude images quite qualify for being deliberate derailment), and if somebody genuinely tried to get Iam banned for illegitimate reasons that is even less acceptable, although Profectus has otherwise been a productive and well-behaved member as far as I recall.
As for the original Sailor Moon topic, Iam has likely not broken any current rules, but it still gets very tiresome for our staff to have to deal with the same types of upgrade attempts over and over and over, so taking reasonable breaks between them would at least be appreciated.
As for the original Sailor Moon topic, Iam has likely not broken any current rules, but it still gets very tiresome for our staff to have to deal with the same types of upgrade attempts over and over and over, so taking reasonable breaks between them would at least be appreciated.
KingNanaya
He/Him- 2,635
- 3,651
I wasn't trying to derail, just wanted to have some laughs while waiting for staff to look at the thread
Similar threads
