• 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)

Given that Jozay's warnings so far include changing profiles without a CRT (and this seems like a direct graduation to outright lying about having an accepted CRT), I would agree a permanent ban is a sufficient punishment. This sort of behavior can't be tolerated by our system at all and jeopardizes what level of trust one can have in our profiles. I'd hoped to give Jozay the opportunity to speak, but this does seem defenseless, in my view.

As such, I will currently refrain from banning him until he's spoken, or at least until he's come back to the forum (if he simply ignores the thread, then ban him we shall).
 
This is deceitful and ill-intentioned conduct, and we've been clear in the past about the important role of trust in the importance of managing the site. However, considering that they have not received a ban for this type of conduct in the past, and that the nature of the offense has a limited degree of interpersonal impact (i.e.: it is not as severe on the wellbeing of our users as offense like trolling, harassment, or doxxing), I feel a permanent ban is a bit extreme here. Particularly, I think an extended period of punishment would be enough for Jozaysmith to come back to the site and not cause further issues, so I would rather make room for that possibility. I would prefer something along the lines of a 1 year ban.
 
I can accept less than permanent, but feel one year may be too light- I think the new behavior puts the old in a position where we can't consider it entirely innocent or ignorant, but rather a legitimate attempt to circumvent our systems. I'd be inclined to go with two years.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
This was brought to my attention.

@Jozaysmith? has deceptively altered a CRT after it was accepted to apply a handful of additional abilities on top of what was agreed upon by the staff members evaluating the thread (specifically @DarkDragonMedeus and @Elizhaa) here. Check the two edits applied to the thread since Elizhaa's evaluation and you'll see that the following was added on about six hours after their last comments:

dhbVhW3.png


...and yet, this was applied to pages by @Mizuki67 all the same here.

We should wait for their replies but I find this to be deceitful and greatly concerning at best, and it may constitute an investigation into past CRTs involving these two.
Click to expand...
I added one ability, i can remove it
 
Theglassman12 said:
I'm fine with a permaban for Jozay, the edits on top of his attitude towards anyone who has any questions towards his CRTs feels like red flags for me.
Click to expand...
Mr. Bambu said:
I can accept less than permanent, but feel one year may be too light- I think the new behavior puts the old in a position where we can't consider it entirely innocent or ignorant, but rather a legitimate attempt to circumvent our systems. I'd be inclined to go with two years.
Click to expand...
Reiner04 said:
It was discussed at the same time when he was reported for his aggression in mgk thread and to accuse dereck of being- (don't know why i'm hesitant to say the word when it's just a word. May because it sounds vulgar to type) p**o. So true.
Click to expand...
I am fine with any punishment.
 
Jozaysmith? said:
I added one ability, i can remove it
Click to expand...
To be clear, that is not the case. As the image and the changelogs show, you added multiple abilities, some of which are extremely high-end and have a high bar of scrutiny (Nonduality, Immortality type 5, etc).

As you've said you accept any punishment, I will apply a two-year ban, acknowledging that this may be lengthened to permanent if more staff feel it more appropriate- for now I will err on the side of leniency.

Edit: The bans have been applied to Jozaysmith's accounts here and on the wiki, as well as Mizuki67 on the wiki. @Mizuki67 you will likely need to speak with Antvasima about what to do for your situation, and may need to resort to a new Fandom account (and a name change here on the wiki) to set this right. I'm sorry for the inconvenience.
 
Last edited:
Antvasima said:
Also, which wiki pages need to have their contents be modified due to unapproved edits by "Jozaysmith?" ?
Click to expand...
Izis is the one that was noted to be edited to contain the unapproved stuff, I've just undone all edits by Jozay to that one. The unapproved stuff was listed in the CRT to be only for Izis, I don't know if any other CRTs had similar fishiness to them (although one could spend some time going through and checking them vs the edits on the Mizuki67 account, it would just take a rather long while). The other profiles edited as part of that CRT were what DDM and Elizhaa accepted, theoretically those other edits are above-board.
 
Are any of our staff members here (thread moderators or administrators) willing to investigate if other approved "Tensei Shitara Slime Datta Ken" content revision threads started by Jozay or Mizuki have been modified after they were accepted by our staff? That seems like the least difficult investigation method.
 
Hopefully, we won't have to delete the entire verse in the most unfortunate scenario. I've seen Mizuki and Jordan making shit tons of multiple edits abruptly and then linking a CRT like nothing occurred on many occasions. I had suspicion back then but let it slide nonetheless since I've seen approvals of multiple admins, though, looking back it really does beg the question of whether this is their first time manipulating a CRT.
 
GarrixianXD said:
Hopefully, we won't have to delete the verse in the most unfortunate scenario. I've seen Mizuki and Jordan making shit tons of multiple edits abruptly and then linking a CRT like nothing occurred on many occasions. I had suspicion back then but let it slide nonetheless since I've seen approvals of multiple admins, though, looking back it does beg the question of whether this is their first time manipulating a CRT.
Click to expand...
okay i edit profiles with revisions as far as i recall. None of it were edited without revisions except for profiles and some small ability he added in unless you have a problem with the number of staff that we took to get a CRT accepted so yeah. You might want to ask @Elizhaa @CodeCCLL before you go and decide to delete or nuke the verse but I do agree that the verse needs some fixing to do

The reason I had so many edits in the first place was because i am used to it when I edit stuff in fandom profiles. Sometimes i made mistakes when I do my edits
Also two people are using the fandom account that include myself, and Jozaysmith. It is just that now he had decided to add that nonduality thing in his thread which i have no idea why .
 
Last edited:
It's unlikely we'll need to delete the entire verse for this. The situation is certainly bad given the potential for long-running corruptions but it isn't dire enough to Old Yeller the sorry thing. If nobody more knowledgeable volunteers, I suppose I will go through Jozay's threads and see what, if anything, is outright amiss, and return with my findings. I will grumble about it, however.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
It's unlikely we'll need to delete the entire verse for this. The situation is certainly bad given the potential for long-running corruptions but it isn't dire enough to Old Yeller the sorry thing. If nobody more knowledgeable volunteers, I suppose I will go through Jozay's threads and see what, if anything, is outright amiss, and return with my findings. I will grumble about it, however.
Click to expand...
I agree with Bambu. We just need volunteers to evaluate if the recent TSSDK revisions have been legitimate.

@Celestial_Pegasus @Elizhaa @Community_Gamer @Metalballrun @CrimsonStarFallen @Everything12
 
reporting @E6pire for stonewalling and being rude in this regular show crt
vsbattles.com

Regular Show Every Character Immeasurable Speed Uprage

Hi everybody. I'm here to do something I've been wanting to do for a while. I want to make a few characters Immeasurable Speed. Me and @E6pire have prepared this thread together. Then let's get started! Main feats; Throughout the film, Time is depicted in the form of a Purple Line. So much so...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com

every time I make a response to him he just dismisses any and all arguments by saying "that's how scaling chains work" or "I already debunked those". This has happened to just about everyone who has made a post in that thread. he also accused ddm of giving false information for sharing information that someone had privately sent them.

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png


Also, sorry, I don't know how to make the images smaller
 
We've recently demoted @TheUnshakableOne from her position as a translation helper and banned her for 4 months due to various bits of evidence that point towards her not actually knowing Japanese, and simply using machine translation, on at least one occasion seemingly with intent to misrepresent a series' rating. The evidence for that is as follows:
  1. Her posts breaking down the translations of phrases, such as this one and this one, have vastly better grammar, spelling, punctuation, and use of more advanced terminology than the other parts of those posts, and from all other posts she's made. It's fairly similar, although not quite identical, to output from ChatGPT when you ask it to break down a translation.
  2. She previously offered to show proof of attending a Japanese language course, but now that we've requested that, has been hesitant to due to privacy concerns. On top of this, fairly recently, she asked for help translating some Japanese text, due to r/translator being down, implying that she didn't understand Japanese at the time, which would imply she had been lying about credentials to get a staff position. While she claims she wanted someone else to translate it, due to her desire to use it for upgrades and not wanting to be seen as biased, given the other evidence, we don't view this as particularly likely.
  3. In this thread she said that the line "無限に存在する多次元を移動しながら" translated to "Drifting through an infinite number of multiverse(s.)", while in actuality, the line doesn't contain a word for multiverse (i.e. 多元宇宙or マルチバース), and instead contains the word for dimensions (多次元).
  4. There's a variety of other minor oddities with the explanations, such as repeating the explanations for the same thing multiple times (look for "の (no)") in this post's explanation, and providing a hiragana conversion for words that are already in hiragana (look in this post's explanation for lines such as "すら (すら)", and compare them to lines like "制御 (せいぎょ)". While these ones in particular could plausibly happen to anyone, they make us more skeptical given the other evidence.
All of this evidence in totality has driven us to this particular punishment. Further discussion on this topic is not permitted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DarkGrath said:
We've recently demoted @TheUnshakableOne from her position as a translation helper and banned her for 4 months due to various bits of evidence that point towards her not actually knowing Japanese, and simply using machine translation, on at least one occasion seemingly with intent to misrepresent a series' rating. The evidence for that is as follows:
  1. Her posts breaking down the translations of phrases, such as this one and this one, have vastly better grammar, spelling, punctuation, and use of more advanced terminology than the other parts of those posts, and from all other posts she's made. It's fairly similar, although not quite identical, to output from ChatGPT when you ask it to break down a translation.
  2. She previously offered to show proof of attending a Japanese language course, but now that we've requested that, has been hesitant to due to privacy concerns. On top of this, fairly recently, she asked for help translating some Japanese text, due to r/translator being down, implying that she didn't understand Japanese at the time, which would imply she had been lying about credentials to get a staff position. While she claims she wanted someone else to translate it, due to her desire to use it for upgrades and not wanting to be seen as biased, given the other evidence, we don't view this as particularly likely.
  3. In this thread she said that the line "無限に存在する多次元を移動しながら" translated to "Drifting through an infinite number of multiverse(s.)", while in actuality, the line doesn't contain a word for multiverse (i.e. 多元宇宙or マルチバース), and instead contains the word for dimensions (多次元).
  4. There's a variety of other minor oddities with the explanations, such as repeating the explanations for the same thing multiple times (look for "の (no)") in this post's explanation, and providing a hiragana conversion for words that are already in hiragana (look in this post's explanation for lines such as "すら (すら)", and compare them to lines like "制御 (せいぎょ)". While these ones in particular could plausibly happen to anyone, they make us more skeptical given the other evidence.
All of this evidence in totality has driven us to this particular punishment. Further discussion on this topic is not permitted.
Click to expand...
Well, i have in mind that some of her things have gone because of her translation for Saint Seiya and are we going to remove all that from Saint Seiya or are we just going to leave it there?
 
LuffyRuffy46307 said:
Well, i have in mind that some of her things have gone because of her translation for Saint Seiya and are we going to remove all that from Saint Seiya or are we just going to leave it there?
Click to expand...
MTL or translating stuff by yourself using jisho is allowed afaik. So prolly not, but incase you found any mistranslation, you can create threads and get them removed.
 
KingNanaya said:
reporting @E6pire for stonewalling and being rude in this regular show crt
vsbattles.com

Regular Show Every Character Immeasurable Speed Uprage

Hi everybody. I'm here to do something I've been wanting to do for a while. I want to make a few characters Immeasurable Speed. Me and @E6pire have prepared this thread together. Then let's get started! Main feats; Throughout the film, Time is depicted in the form of a Purple Line. So much so...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com

every time I make a response to him he just dismisses any and all arguments by saying "that's how scaling chains work" or "I already debunked those". This has happened to just about everyone who has made a post in that thread. he also accused ddm of giving false information for sharing information that someone had privately sent them.

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png


Also, sorry, I don't know how to make the images smaller
Click to expand...
I don't want this to be forgotten in the sandwich of posts above/below it, so: @E6pire has some argument of being behind a language barrier (Turkish, I think), although this does not completely excuse his (and others, specifically @zaraus) outright refusal to engage amicably with counterarguments. It is true, going through the thread, that basically all posts were made to dismiss arguments rather than actually counter them- to simply make them disappear was the apparent goal.

I would agree with a warning for E6pire and I'll tack on zaraus for the repeated rudeness. This being a minor issue that's been up for awhile, I won't wait expectantly for other staff: one ought to be enough.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
I don't want this to be forgotten in the sandwich of posts above/below it, so: @E6pire has some argument of being behind a language barrier (Turkish, I think), although this does not completely excuse his (and others, specifically @zaraus) outright refusal to engage amicably with counterarguments. It is true, going through the thread, that basically all posts were made to dismiss arguments rather than actually counter them- to simply make them disappear was the apparent goal.

I would agree with a warning for E6pire and I'll tack on zaraus for the repeated rudeness. This being a minor issue that's been up for awhile, I won't wait expectantly for other staff: one ought to be enough.
Click to expand...
He told me how it fits my mind and logic because I call hot dogs immeasurable, I told him that, and I also wanted the rebuttals to only be seen by the admin, because when the admin came, he said that there were a lot of anti feats, so I said that I answered them, it was not to beat the other person privately, my goal was just to have my message at the top and I was worried that the admin wouldn't be able to see it.
 
Yes, I read through the thread. Engaging only with DDM's counterarguments (if they can be called that, largely they were just vague notions of Immeasurable being wrong) but not equally with Nanaya's isn't exactly fair. The counters you did give weren't really approaching the issues listed in SweetDao's post- just picking at random, the Rel+ guy driving a car isn't an anti-feat to the dude being Rel+, whereas all of the antifeats suggest something aside from Immeasurable.

The issue comes in when you refused to accept staff votes because "you refuted the arguments". You also continuously shut out opposition. This is where the claim of stonewalling comes in. I'm not going to pretend every counter-post was entirely right but I think the accusation of stonewalling is basically founded, yes. To be clear, this isn't some grievous accusation that's going to see punishment visited upon you: you acted out and got warned, it isn't any more complicated than that, just strive to be better in the future.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
Yes, I read through the thread. Engaging only with DDM's counterarguments (if they can be called that, largely they were just vague notions of Immeasurable being wrong) but not equally with Nanaya's isn't exactly fair. The counters you did give weren't really approaching the issues listed in SweetDao's post- just picking at random, the Rel+ guy driving a car isn't an anti-feat to the dude being Rel+, whereas all of the antifeats suggest something aside from Immeasurable.

The issue comes in when you refused to accept staff votes because "you refuted the arguments". You also continuously shut out opposition. This is where the claim of stonewalling comes in. I'm not going to pretend every counter-post was entirely right but I think the accusation of stonewalling is basically founded, yes. To be clear, this isn't some grievous accusation that's going to see punishment visited upon you: you acted out and got warned, it isn't any more complicated than that, just strive to be better in the future.
Click to expand...
Well still, Sorry
 
Mr. Bambu said:
Yes, I read through the thread. Engaging only with DDM's counterarguments (if they can be called that, largely they were just vague notions of Immeasurable being wrong) but not equally with Nanaya's isn't exactly fair. The counters you did give weren't really approaching the issues listed in SweetDao's post- just picking at random, the Rel+ guy driving a car isn't an anti-feat to the dude being Rel+, whereas all of the antifeats suggest something aside from Immeasurable.

The issue comes in when you refused to accept staff votes because "you refuted the arguments". You also continuously shut out opposition. This is where the claim of stonewalling comes in. I'm not going to pretend every counter-post was entirely right but I think the accusation of stonewalling is basically founded, yes. To be clear, this isn't some grievous accusation that's going to see punishment visited upon you: you acted out and got warned, it isn't any more complicated than that, just strive to be better in the future.
Click to expand...
For the record, I think SweetDao was the main person writing the counter arguments with most Admins agreeing with him. But before Sweetdao, I was neutralish but leaning towards disagreeing with making everyone Immeasurable. But went to a full disagreement after he posted his reasons. As for the final statement about the purple line, I merely mentioned it via request. It is a user on the wiki who has an account here, but probably messaged me due to not wanting to be involved. Or at least he did not give me permission to namedrop him so I didn't want to say anything that would get him involved. Though I mentioned that I'd prefer if he debated himself and gave his side of the explanation.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
I don't want this to be forgotten in the sandwich of posts above/below it, so: @E6pire has some argument of being behind a language barrier (Turkish, I think), although this does not completely excuse his (and others, specifically @zaraus) outright refusal to engage amicably with counterarguments. It is true, going through the thread, that basically all posts were made to dismiss arguments rather than actually counter them- to simply make them disappear was the apparent goal.

I would agree with a warning for E6pire and I'll tack on zaraus for the repeated rudeness. This being a minor issue that's been up for awhile, I won't wait expectantly for other staff: one ought to be enough.
Click to expand...
I don't quite understand the relevance here.
 
The relevance of what? You were added to the report for pointlessly, callously mean-spirited posts that existed to shut up someone opposing the thread. The relevance is that this is the Rule Violation Reports thread, where rule violations are reported (if necessary). I deemed yours necessary, and so you have received a warning on our tracker, which can be found here, so if in the future you are found to be acting similarly, we can look at that and see a trend.

Does this suitably clarify things?
 
Mr. Bambu said:
The relevance of what? You were added to the report for pointlessly, callously mean-spirited posts that existed to shut up someone opposing the thread. The relevance is that this is the Rule Violation Reports thread, where rule violations are reported (if necessary). I deemed yours necessary, and so you have received a warning on our tracker, which can be found here, so if in the future you are found to be acting similarly, we can look at that and see a trend.

Does this suitably clarify things?
Click to expand...
ok
 
KingNanaya said:
reporting @E6pire for stonewalling and being rude in this regular show crt
vsbattles.com

Regular Show Every Character Immeasurable Speed Uprage

Hi everybody. I'm here to do something I've been wanting to do for a while. I want to make a few characters Immeasurable Speed. Me and @E6pire have prepared this thread together. Then let's get started! Main feats; Throughout the film, Time is depicted in the form of a Purple Line. So much so...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com

every time I make a response to him he just dismisses any and all arguments by saying "that's how scaling chains work" or "I already debunked those". This has happened to just about everyone who has made a post in that thread. he also accused ddm of giving false information for sharing information that someone had privately sent them.
[...]
Click to expand...
In a different thread before the one you're referring to, that same member gave me similar trouble. I prepared my own detailed report about it, and I think I'm in the mood to post it now that I know other people would vouch for me. Thanks for being a source of motivation.
 
I'm reporting @E6pire and @zaraus for having insistently made false accusations about the quality of my input in the following thread, in an attempt to finish the job of getting the thread accepted, potentially at my credibility's expense: Regular Show Revision. The thread itself is within the rules and I don't want to try reverting any revisions in accordance with this report, but I want to give attention to how the two aforementioned members practically cheated their way through my disagreement with one of the details.

Context
At the beginning, we briefly wrote about plenty of ideas that were quickly settled honestly, with me having agreed with most of them. Only one disagreement ultimately matters for this report. For what concerned the thread for the longest time and for what concerns this report, we were observing a scene from Regular Show where characters were fighting in a huge battle on two teams. One of the characters in question, the God of Basketball, has MFTL speed, as told on his VS Battles Wiki profile. He was shown to punch a different character named the Hammer twice, before preparing a wind up punch, which got him hit by another opponent's sneak attack, followed by the Hammer succeeding to punch the God of Basketball away while the latter was injured.

My opinion and E6pire's opinion differ about why the scene played out the way it did. I believe the Hammer was too slow to hit the God of Basketball until the latter was distracted by being in pain from having been sneak attacked, and I think the character who sneak attacked him doesn't have MFTL speed because the God of Basketball accidentally left himself vulnerable. E6pire believes the Hammer needed to have MFTL speed to punch the God of Basketball because the latter's injury wasn't severe enough, and the character who sneak attacked the God of Basketball has MFTL speed due to intercepting his wind up and/or senses. Both opinions are based on seeing visible evidence and coming up with a belief about it for reasons, obviously, which I don't need to go into more detail about in this report. Also, I don't think I need to explain here that it doesn't matter whether one of the interpretations is correct or incorrect, since my report is about behavior in a discussion, and it's not against the rules to be reasonably wrong. Anyway, evidently, I am taking into consideration the other side's interpretation, which is an important detail to keep in mind concerning the events.

Proceeding Discussion
Normal discussion proceeded when I explained my ideas, except, along the way, starting at their second reply to me, E6pire couldn't help continuously falsely accusing me of dishonesty. It started as accusing me of merely "acting on probabilities", which supposedly invalidates my idea, even though their idea is also just as much "acting on probabilities" under their logic, which I had expressed. This disagreement escalated to them making far more direct and excessive accusations of me outright ignoring their point about the character who sneak attacked the God of Basketball, and E6pire was acting as if I was really doing it, when I really wasn't. Zaraus concurred with everything E6pire wrote of me with the same bad attitude. Below are some quotations of the two of them, with links to the original messages.
This was making the discussion drag on for longer than it should've, with some annoying repetition, because E6pire and Zaraus mostly weren't acknowledging my legitimate response, and thus, their own idea didn't adapt to mine for the discussion to actually proceed. Of course, it wasn't mandatory for me to provide input in the first place, but I have sufficient interest in Regular Show to do that, and there's nothing wrong with doing that, since the forum website is meant for this kind of communication. The kind of communication that isn't allowed is excessive false accusations like the ones E6pire and Zaraus made, including the subsequent ones that are even worse.

The message by me linked to this text is proof that I, in fact, wasn't ignoring the point that E6pire and Zaraus accused me of ignoring. I posted such a message because the distrust in me was that distracting. If I address every point someone makes and they still tell me that I'm ignoring their point, then there's no other fair input that I could provide. Admittedly, I had missed one message, but that was after the two members already believed that I was totally ignoring their point anyway, which I wasn't doing, as I proven in my message linked at the beginning of this paragraph. It was unreasonable for them to have accused me the way they did. Also, I posted such a message because I actually do occasionally phrase things in an accidentally misleading way, so I wanted to confirm that I truly wasn't making a mistake. I wouldn't be making this report if my words were acknowledged by the other members understandably, regardless of the sentiment I truly wanted to convey.

Following the comment in the previous paragraph, I hoped for E6pire and/or Zaraus to answer me without being distracted by the possibility of me ignoring their point. Instead of our discussion getting back on track like I had hoped, the two's negative narrative about me was adjusted, suggesting that I was merely being biased and egotistical as a result of not being able to "win the argument", and that I should be excluded from providing input because I don't understand how to actually provide it. Below are some quotations of the two of them, with links to the original messages.

You could say that the discussion ended up going back on track after that, but it was at my expense, shunning me when I didn't do anything to deserve it, with my credibility perhaps harmed unfairly. I decided to stop answering them because reporting them is more productive than trying to fruitlessly defend myself, and their idea of asking for a staff member's opinion isn't bad by itself. Still, they circumvented my disagreement by getting rid of me and treating my input as nothing but trouble, so E6pire could go on their merry way to perform the revision without putting in effort to converse with me productively.

Summary
I joined the thread attempting to stimulate reasonableness in the performance of a revision by having a discussion, and I left having been told that I'm just a sabotaging egomaniac who doesn't know how to give a valid argument and who shouldn't be providing input. For tens of messages, the discussion that I was part of hardly advanced from when I joined to when I left, because most of the time, I was falsely accused of ignoring the other side's interpretation by the same two people, and when this was disproven, their distrust in me somehow became stronger, with the blame for the lack of progress being pinned on me. E6pire and Zaraus have an outrageous inability to handle someone disagreeing with their interpretation, and they seem to put in a lot less effort into fairness than they should, instead opting to put effort into accusations like trolls would. This forum website shouldn't tolerate members who misbehave like this.
 
 
James_Plays_4_Games said:
I'm reporting @E6pire and @zaraus for having insistently made false accusations about the quality of my input in the following thread, in an attempt to finish the job of getting the thread accepted, potentially at my credibility's expense: Regular Show Revision. The thread itself is within the rules and I don't want to try reverting any revisions in accordance with this report, but I want to give attention to how the two aforementioned members practically cheated their way through my disagreement with one of the details.

Context
At the beginning, we briefly wrote about plenty of ideas that were quickly settled honestly, with me having agreed with most of them. Only one disagreement ultimately matters for this report. For what concerned the thread for the longest time and for what concerns this report, we were observing a scene from Regular Show where characters were fighting in a huge battle on two teams. One of the characters in question, the God of Basketball, has MFTL speed, as told on his VS Battles Wiki profile. He was shown to punch a different character named the Hammer twice, before preparing a wind up punch, which got him hit by another opponent's sneak attack, followed by the Hammer succeeding to punch the God of Basketball away while the latter was injured.

My opinion and E6pire's opinion differ about why the scene played out the way it did. I believe the Hammer was too slow to hit the God of Basketball until the latter was distracted by being in pain from having been sneak attacked, and I think the character who sneak attacked him doesn't have MFTL speed because the God of Basketball accidentally left himself vulnerable. E6pire believes the Hammer needed to have MFTL speed to punch the God of Basketball because the latter's injury wasn't severe enough, and the character who sneak attacked the God of Basketball has MFTL speed due to intercepting his wind up and/or senses. Both opinions are based on seeing visible evidence and coming up with a belief about it for reasons, obviously, which I don't need to go into more detail about in this report. Also, I don't think I need to explain here that it doesn't matter whether one of the interpretations is correct or incorrect, since my report is about behavior in a discussion, and it's not against the rules to be reasonably wrong. Anyway, evidently, I am taking into consideration the other side's interpretation, which is an important detail to keep in mind concerning the events.

Proceeding Discussion
Normal discussion proceeded when I explained my ideas, except, along the way, starting at their second reply to me, E6pire couldn't help continuously falsely accusing me of dishonesty. It started as accusing me of merely "acting on probabilities", which supposedly invalidates my idea, even though their idea is also just as much "acting on probabilities" under their logic, which I had expressed. This disagreement escalated to them making far more direct and excessive accusations of me outright ignoring their point about the character who sneak attacked the God of Basketball, and E6pire was acting as if I was really doing it, when I really wasn't. Zaraus concurred with everything E6pire wrote of me with the same bad attitude. Below are some quotations of the two of them, with links to the original messages.
This was making the discussion drag on for longer than it should've, with some annoying repetition, because E6pire and Zaraus mostly weren't acknowledging my legitimate response, and thus, their own idea didn't adapt to mine for the discussion to actually proceed. Of course, it wasn't mandatory for me to provide input in the first place, but I have sufficient interest in Regular Show to do that, and there's nothing wrong with doing that, since the forum website is meant for this kind of communication. The kind of communication that isn't allowed is excessive false accusations like the ones E6pire and Zaraus made, including the subsequent ones that are even worse.

The message by me linked to this text is proof that I, in fact, wasn't ignoring the point that E6pire and Zaraus accused me of ignoring. I posted such a message because the distrust in me was that distracting. If I address every point someone makes and they still tell me that I'm ignoring their point, then there's no other fair input that I could provide. Admittedly, I had missed one message, but that was after the two members already believed that I was totally ignoring their point anyway, which I wasn't doing, as I proven in my message linked at the beginning of this paragraph. It was unreasonable for them to have accused me the way they did. Also, I posted such a message because I actually do occasionally phrase things in an accidentally misleading way, so I wanted to confirm that I truly wasn't making a mistake. I wouldn't be making this report if my words were acknowledged by the other members understandably, regardless of the sentiment I truly wanted to convey.

Following the comment in the previous paragraph, I hoped for E6pire and/or Zaraus to answer me without being distracted by the possibility of me ignoring their point. Instead of our discussion getting back on track like I had hoped, the two's negative narrative about me was adjusted, suggesting that I was merely being biased and egotistical as a result of not being able to "win the argument", and that I should be excluded from providing input because I don't understand how to actually provide it. Below are some quotations of the two of them, with links to the original messages.

You could say that the discussion ended up going back on track after that, but it was at my expense, shunning me when I didn't do anything to deserve it, with my credibility perhaps harmed unfairly. I decided to stop answering them because reporting them is more productive than trying to fruitlessly defend myself, and their idea of asking for a staff member's opinion isn't bad by itself. Still, they circumvented my disagreement by getting rid of me and treating my input as nothing but trouble, so E6pire could go on their merry way to perform the revision without putting in effort to converse with me productively.

Summary
I joined the thread attempting to stimulate reasonableness in the performance of a revision by having a discussion, and I left having been told that I'm just a sabotaging egomaniac who doesn't know how to give a valid argument and who shouldn't be providing input. For tens of messages, the discussion that I was part of hardly advanced from when I joined to when I left, because most of the time, I was falsely accused of ignoring the other side's interpretation by the same two people, and when this was disproven, their distrust in me somehow became stronger, with the blame for the lack of progress being pinned on me. E6pire and Zaraus have an outrageous inability to handle someone disagreeing with their interpretation, and they seem to put in a lot less effort into fairness than they should, instead opting to put effort into accusations like trolls would. This forum website shouldn't tolerate members who misbehave like this.
Click to expand...
If the word "debate" affects you so much, the problem is not with us but with you.
 
James_Plays_4_Games said:
I'm reporting @E6pire and @zaraus for having insistently made false accusations about the quality of my input in the following thread, in an attempt to finish the job of getting the thread accepted, potentially at my credibility's expense: Regular Show Revision. The thread itself is within the rules and I don't want to try reverting any revisions in accordance with this report, but I want to give attention to how the two aforementioned members practically cheated their way through my disagreement with one of the details.

Context
At the beginning, we briefly wrote about plenty of ideas that were quickly settled honestly, with me having agreed with most of them. Only one disagreement ultimately matters for this report. For what concerned the thread for the longest time and for what concerns this report, we were observing a scene from Regular Show where characters were fighting in a huge battle on two teams. One of the characters in question, the God of Basketball, has MFTL speed, as told on his VS Battles Wiki profile. He was shown to punch a different character named the Hammer twice, before preparing a wind up punch, which got him hit by another opponent's sneak attack, followed by the Hammer succeeding to punch the God of Basketball away while the latter was injured.

My opinion and E6pire's opinion differ about why the scene played out the way it did. I believe the Hammer was too slow to hit the God of Basketball until the latter was distracted by being in pain from having been sneak attacked, and I think the character who sneak attacked him doesn't have MFTL speed because the God of Basketball accidentally left himself vulnerable. E6pire believes the Hammer needed to have MFTL speed to punch the God of Basketball because the latter's injury wasn't severe enough, and the character who sneak attacked the God of Basketball has MFTL speed due to intercepting his wind up and/or senses. Both opinions are based on seeing visible evidence and coming up with a belief about it for reasons, obviously, which I don't need to go into more detail about in this report. Also, I don't think I need to explain here that it doesn't matter whether one of the interpretations is correct or incorrect, since my report is about behavior in a discussion, and it's not against the rules to be reasonably wrong. Anyway, evidently, I am taking into consideration the other side's interpretation, which is an important detail to keep in mind concerning the events.

Proceeding Discussion
Normal discussion proceeded when I explained my ideas, except, along the way, starting at their second reply to me, E6pire couldn't help continuously falsely accusing me of dishonesty. It started as accusing me of merely "acting on probabilities", which supposedly invalidates my idea, even though their idea is also just as much "acting on probabilities" under their logic, which I had expressed. This disagreement escalated to them making far more direct and excessive accusations of me outright ignoring their point about the character who sneak attacked the God of Basketball, and E6pire was acting as if I was really doing it, when I really wasn't. Zaraus concurred with everything E6pire wrote of me with the same bad attitude. Below are some quotations of the two of them, with links to the original messages.
This was making the discussion drag on for longer than it should've, with some annoying repetition, because E6pire and Zaraus mostly weren't acknowledging my legitimate response, and thus, their own idea didn't adapt to mine for the discussion to actually proceed. Of course, it wasn't mandatory for me to provide input in the first place, but I have sufficient interest in Regular Show to do that, and there's nothing wrong with doing that, since the forum website is meant for this kind of communication. The kind of communication that isn't allowed is excessive false accusations like the ones E6pire and Zaraus made, including the subsequent ones that are even worse.

The message by me linked to this text is proof that I, in fact, wasn't ignoring the point that E6pire and Zaraus accused me of ignoring. I posted such a message because the distrust in me was that distracting. If I address every point someone makes and they still tell me that I'm ignoring their point, then there's no other fair input that I could provide. Admittedly, I had missed one message, but that was after the two members already believed that I was totally ignoring their point anyway, which I wasn't doing, as I proven in my message linked at the beginning of this paragraph. It was unreasonable for them to have accused me the way they did. Also, I posted such a message because I actually do occasionally phrase things in an accidentally misleading way, so I wanted to confirm that I truly wasn't making a mistake. I wouldn't be making this report if my words were acknowledged by the other members understandably, regardless of the sentiment I truly wanted to convey.

Following the comment in the previous paragraph, I hoped for E6pire and/or Zaraus to answer me without being distracted by the possibility of me ignoring their point. Instead of our discussion getting back on track like I had hoped, the two's negative narrative about me was adjusted, suggesting that I was merely being biased and egotistical as a result of not being able to "win the argument", and that I should be excluded from providing input because I don't understand how to actually provide it. Below are some quotations of the two of them, with links to the original messages.

You could say that the discussion ended up going back on track after that, but it was at my expense, shunning me when I didn't do anything to deserve it, with my credibility perhaps harmed unfairly. I decided to stop answering them because reporting them is more productive than trying to fruitlessly defend myself, and their idea of asking for a staff member's opinion isn't bad by itself. Still, they circumvented my disagreement by getting rid of me and treating my input as nothing but trouble, so E6pire could go on their merry way to perform the revision without putting in effort to converse with me productively.

Summary
I joined the thread attempting to stimulate reasonableness in the performance of a revision by having a discussion, and I left having been told that I'm just a sabotaging egomaniac who doesn't know how to give a valid argument and who shouldn't be providing input. For tens of messages, the discussion that I was part of hardly advanced from when I joined to when I left, because most of the time, I was falsely accused of ignoring the other side's interpretation by the same two people, and when this was disproven, their distrust in me somehow became stronger, with the blame for the lack of progress being pinned on me. E6pire and Zaraus have an outrageous inability to handle someone disagreeing with their interpretation, and they seem to put in a lot less effort into fairness than they should, instead opting to put effort into accusations like trolls would. This forum website shouldn't tolerate members who misbehave like this.
Click to expand...
I think the result of the crt I did must have bothered you, you say these things, there is nothing wrong with giving fallacy in discussion, there is a section for this in the wiki, there is nothing wrong with saying that your claims are wrong, I clearly say that I am waiting for the admin, the admin says I will look at it later, instead of waiting for the admin, you say you said this to me, you said that, if you are uncomfortable discussing as if your admin is preventing you from seeing the messages, there's nothing I can do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
30 31 32
Replies
1K
Views
94K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Sticky
Extremely important announcements for our community
Replies
31
Views
5K
Agnaa
Agnaa
Clarification Of Sentence Phrasings And Addition Of Expected Punishments For Each Type Of Rule Breach For All Rules Pages
Replies
19
Views
2K
GarrixianXD
GarrixianXD
AThe1412
Can you restrict a character's Standard Equipment if it gives them a different tier?
Replies
2
Views
427
TheGreatJedi13
TheGreatJedi13
Back
Top