Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[StrymULTRA]

He talked with you like instantly after you made that claim...?

Yeah not buying that.

 

[Sdjlakjh]

He talked with you like instantly after you made that claim...?

Yeah not buying that.

In a much previous time when I didnt know that leading questions are not allowed even if it meant within source material

 

[StrymULTRA]

This literally hurts your defense even more lol.

But whatever.

 

[Sdjlakjh]

This literally hurts your defense even more lol.

But whatever.

You were trying to say I still use the same author statements when that's not what happening here

 

[StrymULTRA]

You were trying to say I still use the same author statements when that's not what happening here

I am not saying that. I am reporting you using any kind of author statement, not just the ones that were reported from @Shmooply.

You can't use any author statement to begin with if those are asked from you, that's the thing.

 

[Sdjlakjh]

I am not saying that. I am reporting you using any kind of author statement, not just the ones that were reported from @Shmooply.

You can't use any author statement to begin with if those are asked from you, that's the thing.

I never try to use author statements that were asked by me again?

 

[Antvasima]

Hey everyone,

I want to sincerely apologize for what I said in the dc chat. I understand that my comment about "doxxing" was completely inappropriate, and I deeply regret saying it. I was caught up in the moment, and I didn't think about the seriousness of my words. I want to make it clear that I had no intention of actually doing so infact I actually can't , and I realize now that even joking about it is not okay.

I’m sorry for causing any stress or concern, and I take full responsibility for my actions. I understand that my words could have serious consequences, and I never meant to hurt anyone or make anyone feel unsafe. I’ve learned from this experience and will be more mindful of what I say in the future.

If there's anything I can do to make things right, please let me know. Again, I'm really sorry for what happened .

Just a note that he would like to apologise again:

CelestialVortex01

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Antvasima]

Also, regular members should avoid spamming here.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Just a note that he would like to apologise again:

CelestialVortex01

vsbattles.fandom.com

The default position, in my view, is to accept apologies, but depending on the deed, not necessarily forget the action taken. Legitimately those comments were entirely disgusting, and Damage would have been well within his rights to push for harsher punishment. That sort of stuff is extremely serious and it is devastating to consider just how many people would casually threaten such an insane extreme over such a petty ******* hobby.

Now. With that said, it does not fall to me to accept apologies. Really, as this isn't about a current rule violation, the only person apologies should be sent to is Damage, from that guy directly.

I never try to use author statements that were asked by me again?

On this, and the preceding messages: authorial statements are often usable, presuming that the source has a consistent record of offering legitimate lore information (meaning personal accounts are often discredited). I'm not sure about the context at work here, so I will ask @StrymULTRA to detail what exactly is going on. I will further clarify that I am only asking the pinged user, and I ask that the pinged user post their message ignoring other messages that may be posted in the interim by unauthorized posters. I just want the facts as you know them.

 

[StrymULTRA]

On this, and the preceding messages: authorial statements are often usable, presuming that the source has a consistent record of offering legitimate lore information (meaning personal accounts are often discredited). I'm not sure about the context at work here, so I will ask @StrymULTRA to detail what exactly is going on. I will further clarify that I am only asking the pinged user, and I ask that the pinged user post their message ignoring other messages that may be posted in the interim by unauthorized posters. I just want the facts as you know them.

Basically the dude is literally saying that he prefers to just ask the author rather than compiling evidence from the series because according to him "it's easier and he wouldn't have to compile a blog", which literally makes 0 sense and makes these abilities even more filmshy.

Yes, it's said in the downgrade made from @Shmooply about removing the resistances obtained through only author statements, and his only defense to maintain that "evidence" in the profile was only this.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Alright. And now, on the other side: @Sdjlakjh, in your own words (and in one post), please elaborate on why you feel you did nothing wrong- whether this is an error or misunderstanding, and that you're not using author-asked questions, or if there's some context that might make it not a direct violation of the rules.

As it stands, I will reiterate that using questions asked of the author does indeed fall against our policies, and those questions are unusable, whether you personally find them to be leading or not.

 

[Sdjlakjh]

Alright. And now, on the other side: @Sdjlakjh, in your own words (and in one post), please elaborate on why you feel you did nothing wrong- whether this is an error or misunderstanding, and that you're not using author-asked questions, or if there's some context that might make it not a direct violation of the rules.

As it stands, I will reiterate that using questions asked of the author does indeed fall against our policies, and those questions are unusable, whether you personally find them to be leading or not.

Ok so what happens is this:

-He was trying to remove abilities because it's a leading question
-I then mentioned no need as I could make a blog why they have such resistances
-He then ask, why bother use a leading question instead of a blog?
-I said it's because I didnt know it wasn't allowed beforehand and just directly ask the author so I can get better confirmation

Now he's reporting me thinking that I am still using the leading author statements (when I stopped after you talked to me)

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Ok so what happens is this:

-He was trying to remove abilities because it's a leading question
-I then mentioned no need as I could make a blog why they have such resistances
-He then ask, why bother use a leading question instead of a blog?
-I said it's because I didnt know it wasn't allowed beforehand and just directly ask the author so I can get better confirmation

Now he's reporting me thinking that I am still using the leading author statements (when I stopped after you talked to me)

Okay. Then it seems to me the way to do this is to remove the abilities given until your evidence is compiled and prepared to present. You can't use whatever evidence was based on authorial questions.

 

[Sdjlakjh]

Okay. Then it seems to me the way to do this is to remove the abilities given until your evidence is compiled and prepared to present. You can't use whatever evidence was based on authorial questions.

I already have mention you in my newest CRT tackling the abilities problem btw