• 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)

Topaz: Strongly disagree with action being taken. Obviously, maybe, but it bears mentioning.

Life of King: Also disagree with action being taken. I agree with FinePoint in that practically all of these can be cast in a comedic light. If it were actually malicious, the tone behind them would not be as it is- "No **** you" was clearly meant in this light, and I think that's the worst of the posts.
 
Reiner04 said:
I actually had one question I was hesitant to ask about but my curiosity, Is being racist, feminist, sense of superiority over certain culture, group, religion, race, cast or disliking certain culture, beliefs or groups itself is a punishable offence- or to having it severe enough to wish/do harm to other community? I see a very grey line about it amongst different mods so I just couldn't get the exact answer reading stuff. I'll rest here.
Click to expand...
Bump
 
MorrisHatesYou said:
Bump
Click to expand...
I was hesitant to bump considering it's sensitivity.
But to express my thoughts in kind of better manner, but obviously will be lacking as my English is... Shit..
I do know we can't have religious, racial, political discussions here in order to maintain the healthy environment where everyone can feel comfortable to engage in, everyone liking everyone, seeing everyone equal sure is ideal thing but isn't it's too much to force this ideal belief on everyone disregarding what they want to like, to whom they want to engage with, etc... so are offsite rules expands upto not just having this ideal behaviour we expect on site to be here but everywhere, to the point if ever to be known or caught to not liking certain culture, belief, religion, country or to have sense of superiority over religious, caste, or group, they can be punished. Even if it's just limited to like/dislike, favour/unfavoured without wishing any form of harm? I think hating someone based of their disliking/liking, preference shouldn't be done, i myself wouldn't care enough if someone dislikes me, unless ofc, there is hostility involved. And we shouldn't dig in to go as far as to intervene all places not in our jurisdiction. Simply just restricting our users to not discuss stuff related to the topic on here should be enough. obviously I can be wrong thinking this way. But that's just how I feel about few things.
Click to expand...
 
Reiner04 said:
I actually had one question I was hesitant to ask about but my curiosity, Is being racist, feminist, sense of superiority over certain culture, group, religion, race, cast or disliking certain culture, beliefs or groups itself is a punishable offence- or to having it severe enough to wish/do harm to other community? I see a very grey line about it amongst different mods so I just couldn't get the exact answer reading stuff. I'll rest here.
Click to expand...
Well, I personally think that simply being prejudiced on a personal level without actually targetting anybody or propagating prejudice to others should not be sufficient grounds for banning the prejudiced person in question, unless it is outright bigotry and/or supremacism, such as wishing harm, oppression, or similar on other groups, but other staff members likely disagree. 🙏
 

LIFE_OF_KING​

LIFE_OF_KING said:
I still dont get why I would be banned when the things that I have done were

1- Saying cope to someone nonstop (This one is fair)
2- Saying "Fu.ck you" in a nonserious way (No one got offended at all)
3- Making jokes about a downgrade that everyone was already joking about

Nothing here seems really that deep

EDIT: Should the second warining really be considered a real warning at all? I mean, not even Ant agreed with the report
Click to expand...
They weren't jokes about the downgrade, they were insults towards the thread's creator. A person who was new to the site. And you continued after they asked you to stop, and after other users and staff members asked you to stop.
LIFE_OF_KING said:
Gay JJK profile pic
There's not much to say
Click to expand...
LIFE_OF_KING said:
Click to expand...

LIFE_OF_KING said:
Are you special?
Click to expand...
Mr._Bambu said:
Topaz: Strongly disagree with action being taken. Obviously, maybe, but it bears mentioning.

Life of King: Also disagree with action being taken. I agree with FinePoint in that practically all of these can be cast in a comedic light. If it were actually malicious, the tone behind them would not be as it is- "No **** you" was clearly meant in this light, and I think that's the worst of the posts.
Click to expand...
You seem to be misunderstanding. That "**** you" comment was something LOK was warned for 6 months ago. I'm talking about a ban for newer comments, considering he's repeatedly joked with personal insults towards people he doesn't know in the past, been warned, and is still engaging in the same behaviour.


The_Yellow_Topaz​

I find these incidents too minor to really be violations. The things you call "aggressive" weren't so to any people in particular. Just towards arguments, or media properties. Closest thing to a personal thing is "Do the math Einstein" which is way too soft for me to care about.


Reiner04's Question​

Given the general staff consensus on the recent ban of Shmooply, it seems like expressing those views off-site is enough, even without it being linked to a wish of harm.


Other Reports​

Some other reports have, I think, received too little attention to be finalized; I'm going to try looking back to track down staff member's views on them, apply them if they're conclusive, and provide relevant info for more input in an ensuing post if necessary.
 
Agnaa said:
They weren't jokes about the downgrade, they were insults towards the thread's creator. A person who was new to the site. And you continued after they asked you to stop, and after other users and staff members asked you to stop.
Click to expand...
I stopped tho. I only commented again when the OP responded me just after I said that I was dropping the thread

Beside, its not like my comments are that bad in comparasion to anothers. Theres no reason to take my comments that deep when nothing there is half as bad as the way you're making it sound

EDIT: Removed a irrelevant part. Plus, this is my last comment about the subject
 
Last edited:
LIFE_OF_KING said:
I stopped tho. I only commented again when the OP responded me just after I said that I was dropping the thread

Beside, its not like my comments are that bad in comparasion to anothers. Theres no reason to take my comments that deep when nothing there is half as bad as the way you're making it sound

EDIT: Removed a irrelevant part. Plus, this is my last comment about the subject
Click to expand...
You returned when the OP tried arguing against you, with simply another insult towards them.

I don't remember others in the thread directly insulting the OP. At most, they mocked the arguments. So I would say that your comments are bad in comparison.
 
Given the general staff consensus on the recent ban of Shmooply, it seems like expressing those views off-site is enough, even without it being linked to a wish of harm.
Click to expand...
This is not towards Agnaa but to that "consensus" not about the shoomply case but the one that is implied to be happening.
It's literally bullshit. And this is clearly what I said would happen.
There is no way to deal with that, but now with this addition users will feel that they can report more often for anything and many may excuse themselves in different ways to justify that report just because they think the rule is on their side (and we know that in many occasions we tend to be too lenient with the users) and as I said many members already feel afraid that anyone will report them or take anything out of context reaching points of strenuous discussion and internal fights that for users of little mental strength may become overwhelming that anything they say has to be regulated for fear that someone will report them.
Click to expand...
As anything that is being discussed among a private group if exposed will directly affect the on-site user. Obviously I don't see a problem with punishing extremely extreme cases that involve direct harassment or dox in some way. But any shit-talk between friends without a direct feeling to any user will be punished? There would literally be no freedom of speech as some call it and this will simply be just a place where anyone will be punished for anything.

I know many who talk any number of antics/nonsense but among friends without affecting anyone specific, if this is a thing now then leaving this place would be the best option as no one would feel safe to be every day watching what they say for fear that someone will SS en and report them just because yes.

This is not a prison where even others have to watch their behavior off-site so as not to anger anyone who gets angry.
 

RVR Roundup​

Mehmetnegsss​

Relevant Comments​

Staff Views​

Staff Actions​

I'd like at least one more person checking this, before I go ahead with simply providing instructions and considering this closed.

I am fine with now considering this matter handled.

Luci5678​

Relevant Comments​

Staff Views​

Staff Actions​

I'd like at least one more person checking this, before I go ahead with providing a strict warning and considering this closed.

I am fine with now considering this matter handled.

LIFE_OF_KING​

Relevant Comments​

Staff Views​

Staff Actions​

This merits more input.

I am fine with now considering this matter handled.

Deidalius​

Relevant Comments​

Staff Views​

Staff Actions​

  • None found
I don't like repeatedly bringing this up, but no-one commented last time I tried, so, pinging the people who have already evaluated it.

@LordGriffin1000 @Damage3245 @UchihaSlayer96 @DarkGrath @DarkDragonMedeus @GarrixianXD

Has your opinion on this matter changed with the implementation of the new rules for off-site standards?

If no, could you elaborate on why? (i.e. Do you not think Deidalius' comments are serious, do you not think being attracted to fictional depictions of children extends to attraction to real children, do you not think that being attracted to real children is a danger to site users, do you not want to apply that rule retroactively despite that being done to Shmooply, some combination of the above?)

I think this is important precedent to set, and I don't want it to just slip under the radar due to people forgetting.

I am fine with now considering this matter handled.

Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara​

Relevant Comments​

Staff Views​

Staff Actions​

  • None found
I think this merits more input.

TheGunsFinalWrath​

Relevant Comments​

Staff Views​

Staff Actions​

  • None found
I think this merits more input.
 
Last edited:
Agnaa said:

Mehmetnegsss​

Relevant Comments​

Staff Views​

Staff Actions​

  • None found
I'd like at least one more person checking this, before I go ahead with simply providing instructions and considering this closed.
Click to expand...
I still have the same stance here.

Agnaa said:

Luci5678​

Relevant Comments​

Staff Views​

  • Stricter warning: 1 (GarrixianXD)
  • Strict warning or short ban of a few days: 1 (Agnaa)

Staff Actions​

  • None found
I'd like at least one more person checking this, before I go ahead with providing a strict warning and considering this closed.
Click to expand...
I suppose I have the same take as Agnaa here

Agnaa said:

LIFE_OF_KING​

Relevant Comments​

Staff Views​

Staff Actions​

  • None found
This merits more input.
Click to expand...
In the same boat as Agnaa and Deagonx

Agnaa said:

Deidalius​

Relevant Comments​

Staff Views​

Staff Actions​

  • None found
I don't like repeatedly bringing this up, but no-one commented last time I tried, so, pinging the people who have already evaluated it.

@LordGriffin1000 @Damage3245 @UchihaSlayer96 @DarkGrath @DarkDragonMedeus @GarrixianXD

Has your opinion on this matter changed with the implementation of the new rules for off-site standards?

If no, could you elaborate on why? (i.e. Do you not think Deidalius' comments are serious, do you not think being attracted to fictional depictions of children extends to attraction to real children, do you not think that being attracted to real children is a danger to site users, do you not want to apply that rule retroactively despite that being done to Shmooply, some combination of the above?)

I think this is important precedent to set, and I don't want it to just slip under the radar due to people forgetting.
Click to expand...
No action needed, aside from perhaps a reminder that Deidalius should try to avoid Fujiwura whenever possible.

Agnaa said:

Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara​

Relevant Comments​

Staff Views​

Staff Actions​

  • None found
I think this merits more input.
Click to expand...
I think a short ban might be warranted given she has had multiple warnings

Agnaa said:

TheGunsFinalWrath​

Relevant Comments​

Staff Views​

Staff Actions​

  • None found
I think this merits more input.
Click to expand...
Light warning at worst by the looks of it.
 
I may as well give some input on this.
Agnaa said:

RVR Roundup​

Mehmetnegsss​

Relevant Comments​

Staff Views​

Staff Actions​

  • None found
I'd like at least one more person checking this, before I go ahead with simply providing instructions and considering this closed.
Click to expand...
I think this in itself would have been handled if proper instructions had been given to the user of how things work here, a few instructions plus a small reminder is enough.
Agnaa said:

Luci5678​

Relevant Comments​

Staff Views​

  • Stricter warning: 1 (GarrixianXD)
  • Strict warning or short ban of a few days: 1 (Agnaa)

Staff Actions​

  • None found
I'd like at least one more person checking this, before I go ahead with providing a strict warning and considering this closed.
Click to expand...
Honestly I see a strict enough warning but seeing the reasoning behind the user's actions I can deduce that a small punishment as suggested by Agnaa might work to make him rethink his actions.
Agnaa said:

LIFE_OF_KING​

Relevant Comments​

Staff Views​

Staff Actions​

  • None found
This merits more input.
Click to expand...
Same as agnaa.
Agnaa said:

Deidalius​

Relevant Comments​

Staff Views​

Staff Actions​

  • None found
Click to expand...
No action.
Agnaa said:

Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara​

Relevant Comments​

Staff Views​

Staff Actions​

  • None found
I think this merits more input.
Click to expand...
I feel that I change my instance to a short ban due to the history that the user possesses.
Agnaa said:

TheGunsFinalWrath​

Relevant Comments​

Staff Views​

Staff Actions​

  • None found
I think this merits more input.
Click to expand...
Still the same.
 
Alright, I've edited those takes in, instructed Mehmetnegsss, and warned Luci5678.

With how much things have swung in the LOK case now, I'm going to apply a 3 day ban (EDIT: I've done so).

That only really leaves the Fujiwara and Guns stuff with an unclear direction.
 
Agnaa said:

Deidalius​

Relevant Comments​

Staff Views​

Staff Actions​

  • None found
I don't like repeatedly bringing this up, but no-one commented last time I tried, so, pinging the people who have already evaluated it.

Has your opinion on this matter changed with the implementation of the new rules for off-site standards?

If no, could you elaborate on why? (i.e. Do you not think Deidalius' comments are serious, do you not think being attracted to fictional depictions of children extends to attraction to real children, do you not think that being attracted to real children is a danger to site users, do you not want to apply that rule retroactively despite that being done to Shmooply, some combination of the above?)

I think this is important precedent to set, and I don't want it to just slip under the radar due to people forgetting.
Click to expand...
My opinion on this matter has not substantially changed.

To be as clear on 'why' as possible - it was an explicit point when revising the off-site standards that merely having taboo fetishes is not a rule violation if it is not brought on-site. What would be a rule violation is substantial reason to believe that they have committed (or intend to commit) sexual harms to others. This was what was agreed upon, and it hasn't changed. The concern here seems to be whether comments along the lines of finding these characters attractive is a sign of legitimate intent to commit pedophilic acts - if it was, that would certainly be report worthy. But I don't believe that's the case. That's not a matter of setting a precedent as much as it is acknowledging that, even if taken as serious, and in spite of their obscene content, the screenshots provided didn't provide good reason to believe he was a pedophile or intended to commit pedophilia.

Agnaa said:

Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara​

Relevant Comments​

Staff Views​

Staff Actions​

  • None found
I think this merits more input.
Click to expand...
I believe I spoke on this at some point as well. I don't think any action is necessary.

Agnaa said:

TheGunsFinalWrath​

Relevant Comments​

Staff Views​

Staff Actions​

  • None found
I think this merits more input.
Click to expand...
I don't believe action here is necessary, but I wouldn't oppose a light warning.
 
DarkGrath said:
My opinion on this matter has not substantially changed.

To be as clear on 'why' as possible - it was an explicit point when revising the off-site standards that merely having taboo fetishes is not a rule violation if it is not brought on-site. What would be a rule violation is substantial reason to believe that they have committed (or intend to commit) sexual harms to others. This was what was agreed upon, and it hasn't changed. The concern here seems to be whether comments along the lines of finding these characters attractive is a sign of legitimate intent to commit pedophilic acts - if it was, that would certainly be report worthy. But I don't believe that's the case. That's not a matter of setting a precedent as much as it is acknowledging that, even if taken as serious, and in spite of their obscene content, the screenshots provided didn't provide good reason to believe he was a pedophile or intended to commit pedophilia.
Click to expand...
What was agreed upon has changed, given how the Shmooply case was handled. In the exact same paragraph where you made that point you also said it was meant to ban people who threatened violence, or partook in hate groups, and that it wouldn't apply to "critics of groups of people with no harmful intentions towards them". But if you don't want to change it further, it seems like you've got the numbers on your side for that. Guess I'll drop it, and consider that aspect resolved.

I've updated that post to incorporate your views.
 
Agnaa said:
What was agreed upon has changed, given how the Shmooply case was handled. In the exact same paragraph where you made that point you also said it was meant to ban people who threatened violence, or partook in hate groups, and that it wouldn't apply to "critics of groups of people with no harmful intentions towards them". But if you don't want to change it further, it seems like you've got the numbers on your side for that. Guess I'll drop it, and consider that aspect resolved.

I've updated that post to incorporate your views.
Click to expand...
I would rather not draw this into the discussion on Shmooply's report, but since it seems to be a point of confusion, I will clarify something.

I don't think a transphobic bigot is merely a 'critic of a group of people with no harmful intentions towards them'. To analogise this phrasing, consider the difference between someone who criticises Christians on the basis of not believing that God is real, and someone who criticises Christians on the basis of believing they deserve less rights than atheists because of their religiosity. The former is a 'critic of a group of people with no harmful intentions towards them', the latter is not.
 
A user seems to have posted a fun and games thread about a series that incorporates principles from Nazi Germany.

i.e., a reference to
Hi*ler
, the statement
Sieg He*l
, and very clear symbolism.

vsbattles.com

Malaysia comic book really something. Adolf?

Trust me, who want waifu version of Adolf? Here we have it on Malaysia comic Don't blame me, I just share what my country comic had offer and I found it amusing TBH.
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com

For clarity, It was not posted in a demeaning way. Given the recent turmoil with race/gender/ideology stuff, I do not know what (if anything) should be done here, but I think the scans should be deleted at least.
 
Dereck03 said:
This is not towards Agnaa but to that "consensus" not about the shoomply case but the one that is implied to be happening.
It's literally bullshit. And this is clearly what I said would happen.

As anything that is being discussed among a private group if exposed will directly affect the on-site user. Obviously I don't see a problem with punishing extremely extreme cases that involve direct harassment or dox in some way. But any shit-talk between friends without a direct feeling to any user will be punished? There would literally be no freedom of speech as some call it and this will simply be just a place where anyone will be punished for anything.

I know many who talk any number of antics/nonsense but among friends without affecting anyone specific, if this is a thing now then leaving this place would be the best option as no one would feel safe to be every day watching what they say for fear that someone will SS en and report them just because yes.

This is not a prison where even others have to watch their behavior off-site so as not to anger anyone who gets angry.
Click to expand...
I think that Dereck03 makes very legitimate points.
 
Catzlaflame said:
A user seems to have posted a fun and games thread about a series that incorporates principles from Nazi Germany.

i.e., a reference to
Hi*ler
, the statement
Sieg He*l
, and very clear symbolism.

vsbattles.com

Malaysia comic book really something. Adolf?

Trust me, who want waifu version of Adolf? Here we have it on Malaysia comic Don't blame me, I just share what my country comic had offer and I found it amusing TBH.
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com

For clarity, It was not posted in a demeaning way. Given the recent turmoil with race/gender/ideology stuff, I do not know what (if anything) should be done here, but I think the scans should be deleted at least.
Click to expand...
We got these types of profiles on the wiki ironically.

vsbattles.fandom.com

Adolf Hitler

Adolf Hitler may refer to: The character from Kung Fury The character from Megami Tensei The character from Petals of Reincarnation
vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com

So judging by precedence, I doubt action needs to be taken, especially that right there is far from worst of the content that’s on this wiki.
 
@GarrixianXD
Of those 3 pages, first two seem to be mentions of Hitl*r (which we do seem to permit I suppose) but I wasn’t aware that we permitted pages with Nazi Swastikas scattered all across the cover image.

Like this one:
https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Adolf_Hitler_(Petals_of_Reincarnation)

Just a few days ago, an Administrator made the following comment about a scan that had name.
Agnaa said:
The "Adolf Hitler" username within in-game screenshots is wack, but is strange enough to not really have a rule around it, and is sufficiently avoidable by us (just finding other scans for those moves)
Click to expand...

Moreover, seems weird that this is permitted, but something like sexually explicit scans are not permitted (as per the NOTES in this page).

Regardless, I’m indifferent either way. I only wish to make sure that we’re equally “harsh” on all types of threads, editing, pages etc.

If it actually wasn’t worth deleting, then I’ll accept the lapse in judgment on my part. Apologies.
 
Sexually explicit scans aren't allowed since they will get us in trouble with Fandom.

I agree with Garrixian.

The reason I don't like such a name being used in a random scan is because it's wholly unnecessary. It's an addition gesturing towards bigotry. Rather than us sincerely representing what a series has.
 
Last edited:
Antvasima said:
Hmm. I am not comfortable with us featuring an image with Nazi swastikas in our wiki. Can another image be selected, or the swastikas be edited out?
Click to expand...
Are you saying this because it will get us in trouble with Fandom or just personal beliefs?

I think others wikis have nazi images on their gallery, don’t they?
 
M3X_2.0 said:
I think others wikis have nazi images on their gallery, don’t they?
Click to expand...
Yeah, other wikis do so it doesn't seem to be a violation of fandom guidelines, thus that Hitler profile of Reincarnation of Profiles has been intact for years.
Antvasima said:
Hmm. I am not comfortable with us featuring an image with Nazi swastikas in our wiki. Can another image be selected, or the swastikas be edited out?
Click to expand...
I suppose that'll be optimal, but unfortunately, we don't have guidelines to restrict it.
 
Last edited:
M3X_2.0 said:
Are you saying this because it will get us in trouble with Fandom or just personal beliefs?

I think others wikis have nazi images on their gallery, don’t they?
Click to expand...
Seems like it. Took a shot in the dark with the Wolfenstein wiki, they have at least some swastikas (and other Nazi imagery, of course), as well as (perhaps obviously) pages for Hitler in a serious or goofy context.

I don't think it's a terrible idea to choose images without Nazi imagery where available but that's unlikely to be found within canon sources given the nature of the content revolving around depicting nazi imagery, it seems. We should still be fine.
 
For the record, unless I'm mistaken:

Terms of Use | Fandom

www.fandom.com www.fandom.com

Post, link or transmit any written, visual, or symbolic content that is obscene, pornographic, abusive, offensive, profane, or otherwise violates any law or right of any third party, or encourages criminal conduct, or contains slurs, hate speech, dog whistles, and/or incitement of violence. This includes, but is not limited to: ableism, ageism, biphobia, discrimination based on family structure(s), ethnocultural discrimination, exorsexism, gender essentialism, homophobia, misogyny, polyphobia, racism, religious or areligious intolerance, sexism, and transphobia;
Click to expand...

Though given Bambu's post I doubt fandom is really enforcing this stuff Ig.

Anyway, I also think we should try to avoid adding these sorta things to pages if possible. Not that I care much, but it seems a bit wrong to open a page and just be hit with that sorta content.

Maybe a better alternative would be to just include a warning template on the page ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Agnaa
Fanart Rule Revamp
Replies
7
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
FinePoint
  • Locked
Clarifying Death Threat Rules
2
Replies
64
Views
6K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Kachon123
One Piece: Planet Size Discussion Rule
Replies
14
Views
2K
RaikiKurohane99
RaikiKurohane99
StarShooter80
Establishing Gap Needed for LS Stomps
Replies
14
Views
1K
StarShooter80
StarShooter80
Agnaa
  • Locked
Controversial Powers on New Pages - Editing Rules Tweak
2
Replies
69
Views
8K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top