Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Damage3245]

@Sdjlakjh Anything you have to say in your defense?

 

[Sdjlakjh]

@Sdjlakjh Anything you have to say in your defense?

For the time manip stuff, I don't believe it's leading question? Since the author previously stated that the LMK characters are beyond physical laws. I'm just asking him to elaborate further on what does it mean (I even already mentioned this in a CRT before)

Wait how does the intelligence doc a rule breaking? I just asked the writer's opinion on it (he ignored anyway)

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Asking authors for evidence for our hobby is considered leading and a rule violation in of itself. It is not allowed period, following many negative outcomes of such behavior in the past (read: Devil May Cry). If this is you, this is a legitimate rule violation, and it bears stating plainly that any such "evidence" gathered in this way is unusable for our site.

 

[Sdjlakjh]

Asking authors for evidence for our hobby is considered leading and a rule violation in of itself. It is not allowed period, following many negative outcomes of such behavior in the past (read: Devil May Cry). If this is you, this is a legitimate rule violation, and it bears stating plainly that any such "evidence" gathered in this way is unusable for our site.

Thing is, the author himself said that said characters can escape a blackhole as they are beyond physical laws. The only question I gave is what does he meant by being beyond physical laws?

A leading question is based on a framework that has no reference to the source material or author statement. It only counts as leading if I ask him: "is this character beyond concepts?" As there is no reference to the original source

 

[Sdjlakjh]

Thing is, the author himself said that said characters can escape a blackhole as they are beyond physical laws. The only question I gave is what does he meant by being beyond physical laws?

A leading question is based on a framework that has no reference to the source material or author statement. It only counts as leading if I ask him: "is this character beyond concepts?" As there is no reference to the original source

Again, I already explained all this in a CRT that I proposed for LMK characters having resistance

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Thing is, the author himself said that said characters can escape a blackhole as they are beyond physical laws. The only question I gave is what does he meant by being beyond physical laws?

A leading question is based on a framework that has no reference to the source material or author statement. It only counts as leading if I ask him: "is this character beyond concepts?" As there is no reference to the original source

I will state for the purposes of the thread my opinion.

Action taken should be light- a warning at worst. Being unaware of our policies on the subject means that going forward, this behavior should not be repeated, but we should not go for maximum possible punishments. It goes without saying that evidence gathered via these questions is unusable. Any resistances added under the pretense of this evidence ought to be removed, regardless of what the author has said.

It's not a big deal, you just need to understand that it is against our rules.

 

[Shmooply]

Please stop pretending that isn't the only leading question you asked.

(Archive)

(Archive)

 

[Sdjlakjh]

I will state for the purposes of the thread my opinion.

Action taken should be light- a warning at worst. Being unaware of our policies on the subject means that going forward, this behavior should not be repeated, but we should not go for maximum possible punishments. It goes without saying that evidence gathered via these questions is unusable. Any resistances added under the pretense of this evidence ought to be removed, regardless of what the author has said.

It's not a big deal, you just need to understand that it is against our rules.

As I read your rules, author statements are fine if they have references to the source material. As we are focusing on the spacetime manip resists, LMK characters beforehand was already showing such feats, I am simply usin the statement to see if such case could also be applied to their resistances

 

[Sdjlakjh]

Please stop pretending that isn't the only leading question you asked.

(Archive)

(Archive)

As I remember in the vsbattle rule, statements are fine if it's within the source material. I did not simply ask the author "hey are LMK characters boundless"? That would be a violation

 

[Mr. Bambu]

As I read your rules, author statements are fine if they have references to the source material. As we are focusing on the spacetime manip resists, LMK characters beforehand was already showing such feats, I am simply usin the statement to see if such case could also be applied to their resistances

Author statements are usable in most circumstances. Asking the author for evidence is never usable and is a violation of our rules. You asking is a rule violation. If you read the rules, you would know this, and thus I encourage you to drop it. Evidence gained in this manner cannot be used, plainly and simply. You cannot argue against the fact that the rule exists, and so I see little point in carrying on.

 

[Sdjlakjh]

Author statements are usable in most circumstances. Asking the author for evidence is never usable and is a violation of our rules. You asking is a rule violation. If you read the rules, you would know this, and thus I encourage you to drop it. Evidence gained in this manner cannot be used, plainly and simply. You cannot argue against the fact that the rule exists, and so I see little point in carrying on.

Hm so if character A was able to outsmart character B, I can't ask the author if char A was indeed smarter than B?

 

[Shmooply]

I guess I should of clarified in my original report. I used the google doc as proof that the account is owned by you, not that it has anything to do with asking leading questions.

 

[Sdjlakjh]

I guess I should of clarified in my original report. I used the google doc as proof that the account is owned by you, not that it has anything to do with asking leading questions.

Well thought so cause I was just asking his opinion on what he thinks of my docs (it was already accepted beforehand in the website so it's not my goal to try leading question)

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Hm so if character A was able to outsmart character B, I can't ask the author if char A was indeed smarter than B?

You can't ask authors powerscaling related questions, correct. No matter the content of the question it is considered pestering and potentially leading, and thus a rule violation.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

You can't ping members, nor is this the place to suggest changes to rules. You will need to create a Staff Discussion thread. I will spare you the time, if you like, by saying that this rule is absolutely necessary, and you really should not, rules or not, be pestering authors for powerscaling stuff. It's a rule for what I consider a good reason.

Now then. As you do not have any real defense on this subject, I will consider an informal warning to knock it off sufficient. If other staff disagree, they may say as much- otherwise, I consider the matter concluded. I will delete unnecessary posts.

 

[Sdjlakjh]

You can't ping members, nor is this the place to suggest changes to rules. You will need to create a Staff Discussion thread. I will spare you the time, if you like, by saying that this rule is absolutely necessary, and you really should not, rules or not, be pestering authors for powerscaling stuff. It's a rule for what I consider a good reason.

Now then. As you do not have any real defense on this subject, I will consider an informal warning to knock it off sufficient. If other staff disagree, they may say as much- otherwise, I consider the matter concluded. I will delete unnecessary posts.

Sure I'll see that soon

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Spamming messages to the RVRT is also a rule violation, for the record. You've sent six recently, if you have something to say, do so on my wall.

 

[Antvasima]

What was the unacceptable and unsettling behavior in question? Arto asked me to ask a few clarification questions for him over discord so he can figure out what exactly is going on, and how to appeal. (only getting involved in this because I was asked to by the other party, and I would feel bad if something like this stuck on his reputation.)

Was this behavior reported, text, or nsfw links and images? The only nsfw things Artorimachi believed he sent were to a male, and someone who isn’t even related to the forum in anyway.

He also asked if the reported account is his original account, or his new one. The original one got lost to a scam.

Just a question regarding if somebody should inform Artorimachi about the more specific reasons why he was banned via a private Discord conversation or similar.

 

[SamanPatou]

I have closed this thread because of heavy spiraling into trolling, shitposting and blatant defiance of our discussion rules and verse equalization for the pure sake of spiting on the rules.
I'm not going to point fingers or make names since I have no time for it, just know the whole purpose of the thread was to instigate ruckus and various users have repeteadly ignored me and others' references to our vs rules, editing rules and first and foremost common sense.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you very much for helping out, Saman.

 

[Wankbreaker]

I have closed this thread because of heavy spiraling into trolling, shitposting and blatant defiance of our discussion rules and verse equalization for the pure sake of spiting on the rules.
I'm not going to point fingers or make names since I have no time for it, just know the whole purpose of the thread was to instigate ruckus and various users have repeteadly ignored me and others' references to our vs rules, editing rules and first and foremost common sense.

There is a valid concern about hyper-strict adherence to the profiles,as purely based on the profiles, Hit would completely hax-stomp Zeno.

Any sane DB watcher/reader would know that hit gets erased instantly, though.

what should be done in cases like these, where the profiles clearly contradict the inverse showings? A user in that thread mentioned someone attempted to rectify this change, it got added, and then a staff re-opened it and "FRA-chained" it to get the changes removed.

 

[Damage3245]

There is a valid concern about hyper-strict adherence to the profiles,as purely based on the profiles, Hit would completely hax-stomp Zeno.

Any sane DB watcher/reader would know that hit gets erased instantly, though.

what should be done in cases like these, where the profiles clearly contradict the inverse showings? A user in that thread mentioned someone attempted to rectify this change, it got added, and then a staff re-opened it and "FRA-chained" it to get the changes removed.

Not the thread for this discussion, but that doesn't appear to be true. I see nothing in Hit's profile that would allow him to defeat Zeno based on Zeno's profile.

Best leave it for another thread.

 

[Wankbreaker]

Not the thread for this discussion, but that doesn't appear to be true. I see nothing in Hit's profile that would allow him to defeat Zeno based on Zeno's profile.

just to paint a picture, here are Zeno's resistances.

i think we can all agree these are pretty bare bones.

• Existence Erasure (History & Space-Time; Survived the omnidirectional blast that erased Future Trunks' world from existence)
• Extrasensory Perception (Cannot be sensed by beings lesser than a "God")
• Extreme Heat (Other Gods can withstand the extremely high temperatures at the Earth's core without any protection)
• Extreme Cold & Cosmic Radiation (Able to survive in outer space, which is extremely cold[7][8] and filled with cosmic radiation)

Here are the haxes hit would have a win-con with, if we are purely basing this off of the profiles.

• Enhanced Time Manipulation (Can now store and suspend beings in time, creating his pocket reality based abilities)
• Durability Negation (His ki blasts can phase through conventional durability, crushing his opponent's inner parts)

Zeno has no resistances to either of these on his profile.

Best leave it for another thread.

Alright, SamanPatou did say to redirect any constructive discussion here,though.

 

[Damage3245]

You don't need to resist an ability in order to defeat another character, but I don't think this is productive for the Rule Violation Reports thread.

 

[StrymULTRA]

As I was involved with the VS Thread in question, I'd suggest to whoever is particulairly bothered to simply shift this to a Staff Only thread regarding Zeno resisting everything in-verse or not, to avoid cluttering this.

 

[SlendVeny]

just to paint a picture, here are Zeno's resistances.

i think we can all agree these are pretty bare bones.


Here are the haxes hit would have a win-con with, if we are purely basing this off of the profiles.


Zeno has no resistances to either of these on his profile.

Alright, SamanPatou did say to redirect any constructive discussion here,though.

Feel free to delete this if it's irrelevant, but the time hax aren't doing anything, I believe Jiren broke through it with raw power.

 

[Antvasima]

As I was involved with the VS Thread in question, I'd suggest to whoever is particulairly bothered to simply shift this to a Staff Only thread regarding Zeno resisting everything in-verse or not, to avoid cluttering this.

This seems like a good idea.

 

[SamanPatou]

There is no need for any discussing or revision, doesn't anyone remember our rules for verse equalization?
When pitting two characters from the same verse together, then the rules abide to those of the verse itself, as as SBA and any other additions are meant to find a middle ground between different verses.

Likewise, our indexing works on the premise of not wandering too much into the realm of possibilities, which would prevent Zeno from having all the resistances in the verse.

Likewise, going by verse equalization rules, Hit will never defeat Zeno, since in such a thread we apply the rules of the verse itself.

I reported it here because I locked it for rule violation-worthy reasons, there just was no user in particular for namecall. I said people can bring constructive arguments, yes, because I dondon't like to shut things now and call it a day, preventing anyone from speaking like a despot.
I might have misjudged the usage of words, but of course I didn't meant to redirect the discussion here, as it would both defy the closing of the thread itself and worsen the situation.

That said, that thread was a cesspool already and things were clearly getting out of hand very quickly, as the nasty purpose of that thread had been accomplished.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I agree with Saman, and as for the Sdjlakjh incident. I agree with Bambu. And it is getting tiresome to have to deal with regular users spamming the RVR without permission or anything relevant to the thread.

 

[Damage3245]

@StrymULTRA Direct questions like that to a message wall, not this thread, please.

 

[StrymULTRA]

Reporting user @Sdjlakjh for using leading questions to wank a verse they support.

Currently, Lady Bone Demon's profile lists the character as having Resistance to Time-Space Manipulation. The evidence being a screenshot of a convo someone had with with the show's screenwriter, where they ask a leading question. I have reasons to believe that this account is owned by Sdjlakjh. Not only does the Twitter account (Archive) happen to share the same profile picture that Sdj has on the forum-

But Sdjlakhj was also warned by Ant for using a google doc of all things as scans for a character's intelligence. Which character was this applied to? Macaque. Coincidentally the same Twitter account also says they have a google doc that has scans and explanations for Macaque's intelligence. (Archive)

An update of this is that @Sdjlakjh is very insistent about using his own Author Statements and straight up refuses from using evidence from the verse because it's "too much" (even if that does not make sense as excuse).

 

[Sdjlakjh]

An update of this is that @Sdjlakjh is very insistent about using his own Author Statements and straight up refuses from using evidence from the verse because it's "too much" (even if that does not make sense as excuse).

False. I never try to use leading questions again, I only explained why I did it before (already talked to Bambu about this)

If you want to hate someone, at least be right about it

 

[StrymULTRA]

False. I never try to use leading questions, I only explained why I did it before (already talked to Bambu about this)

I never said that you used leading questions in the report, only that you use your own author statements, even though your (failed) staff thread still cemented more the fact that you can't do that.

 

[Sdjlakjh]

I never said that you used leading questions in the report, only that you use your own author statements, even though your (failed) staff thread still cemented more the fact that you can't do that.

Can you show me the part where I said I use the author statements asked by me?

 

[StrymULTRA]

Can you show me the part where I said I use the author statements asked by me?

So I don't need to pull up a blog to explain all at. Just the author directly stating is easier

I mean... don't lie at least.

 

[Sdjlakjh]

So I don't need to pull up a blog to explain all at. Just the author directly stating is easier

I mean... don't lie at least.

Yeah I said that for my reasoning why BEFOREHAND I used the author statement. I stopped using it after Bambu talked with me

 

[StrymULTRA]

You said that like a hour ago like... tf?

Imma just let the staff take care of this.

 

[Sdjlakjh]

You said that like a hour ago like... tf?

Imma just let the staff take care of this.

Wdym an hour ago? I was only answering your question why did you use an author statement beforehand. Keyword: beforehand

 

[The_Axiom_of_Virgo]

You said that like a hour ago like... tf?

Imma just let the staff take care of this.

Wdym an hour ago? I was only answering your question why did you use an author statement beforehand. Keyword: beforehand

Please do, this isn't a thread for an argument like this plus this issue should've been resolved here.

Just drop the subject and let the powers at be decide if further action needs to be taken.

 

[Sdjlakjh]

Please do, this isn't a thread for an argument like this plus this issue should've been resolved here.

Just drop the subject and let the powers at be decide if further action needs to be taken.

I believe it's just a misunderstanding right now. Because he thought was I still using the leading author statements when I was only saying my reason why I did it before @Mr. Bambu talked with me