- 890
- 223
In a much previous time when I didnt know that leading questions are not allowed even if it meant within source materialHe talked with you like instantly after you made that claim...?
Yeah not buying that.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In a much previous time when I didnt know that leading questions are not allowed even if it meant within source materialHe talked with you like instantly after you made that claim...?
Yeah not buying that.
You were trying to say I still use the same author statements when that's not what happening hereThis literally hurts your defense even more lol.
But whatever.
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 were trying to say I still use the same author statements when that's not what happening here
I never try to use author statements that were asked by me again?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.
Just a note that he would like to apologise again: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 .
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.
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.I never try to use author statements that were asked by me again?
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.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.
Ok so what happens is this: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.
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.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)
I already have mention you in my newest CRT tackling the abilities problem btwOkay. 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 Has been banned for 6 months, and permanently topic-banned from Lego Monke Kid, after a discussion among some high-level staff due to claiming to have been paid for getting wins for characters in that verse and for offering to pay staff members to evaluate threads.
The latter hasn't been thoroughly discussed, since it was found after we'd already reached a ban decision on the former, but it's my personal opinion that if it were just the latter, the user would only have received a warning since the bribe didn't ask for a particular result and wasn't acted upon.
A rule about not offering or accepting bribes will be added Soon™, but until then I, personally, consider it a violation of our rule requiring users to be reasonable and not show severe irrational bias.
I don't want to aggravate the situation too much, but I'd like to clarify something. I personally know Sdjlak and ik that he lying, since he actually pays a youtuber for matchups based on LMK (nothing to do with VSBW). I also want to point out any LBD matchups I created are in no relations to money or anything whatsoever@Sdjlakjh Has been banned for 6 months, and permanently topic-banned from Lego Monke Kid, after a discussion among some high-level staff due to claiming to have been paid for getting wins for characters in that verse and for offering to pay staff members to evaluate threads.
That's not particularly compelling evidence against receiving bribes imo. It's not exactly unheard of for people to pay both ways for favours on either side.I don't want to aggravate the situation too much, but I'd like to clarify something. I personally know Sdjlak and ik that he lying, since he actually pays a youtuber for matchups based on LMK (nothing to do with VSBW).
This might sound a bit dumb but in short: He joked/lied about paying people to influence LBD's matchups, which bought himself a ban.That's not particularly compelling evidence against receiving bribes imo. It's not exactly unheard of for people to pay both ways for favours on either side.
If you have evidence that indicates he was almost certainly not getting paid, please provide it.This might sound a bit dumb but in short: He joked/lied about paying people to influence LBD's matchups, which bought himself a ban.
I can go get more evidences that he was simply paying Conquestor from him if needed
Here's proof that he was paying Conq the whole time. And he usually asked me/argued with me if LBD could win against characters or not on Discord before making MUs or nah, so he wasn't getting paid for thoseIf you have evidence that indicates he was almost certainly not getting paid, please provide it.
This is the silliest shit I've ever seen on this wiki. I do not say this lightly.Here's proof that he was paying Conq the whole time. And he usually asked me/argued with me if LBD could win against characters or not on Discord before making MUs or nah, so he wasn't getting paid for those
I completly understand you. Will you guys give an update on your decision to me later?This is the silliest shit I've ever seen on this wiki. I do not say this lightly.
It goes without saying, but: don't lie about sending/receiving bribes, aside from just being very weird it is a legitimate offense and you shouldn't be partaking in it. Lying to say that you have will be treated as honest. I'll communicate with the others to see if we will reevaluate this mess.
It should also be said that the issue of saying insults in Spanish to pass the censorship filter is constant with that user.This user keeps clogging up this thread with unnecessary messages and off-topic bantering.
In spanish he says in this message: "I don't like that f***ing Dragon Ball has to be beyond low 2-C and Fire Force isn't low 1-C". It's just starting pointless fan wars and using vulgar language
Sounds right to me.Apparently, he's been banned for 6 months from other threads, and nothing has changed. So, you're right; a year to permanent might work better.
That was for uneccesary threads i made for revisions, i admit i did bad on that, and it was when i was still starting here (in 2022)Apparently, he's been banned for 6 months from other threads, and nothing has changed. So, you're right; a year to permanent might work better.
Thanks AntvasimaBecause it is demanded by Google in order to feature advertisements here and rank well in their searches, and because we do not want to foster a crude, rude, vulgar, and hostile environment.