- 1,728
- 1,633
The screenshot of one of my mutual friends asking the proofreader about the vetting process was posted earlier in this thread,btw.
-
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)
- Thread starter Antvasima
- Start date
- 18,197
- 19,635
In that case, I think this is plainly viewable as an oversight unrelated to Translation Helper duties.
Translation Helpers aren't obligated to personally check every scan they post from a series they could translate; they're only obligated to personally check when they claim to have done so, even if implicitly by response to a translation request without qualifying with something like "I found this translation someone else did online".
So yeah, just posting a scan from a different decently-reputable translator should not be taken as a stamp of approval, and so, this translation falling short in that regard isn't a mark against Wankbreaker. It's just a reason to be diligent about this sort of thing in general.
Hell, even some very reputable stuff often ends up with tiny mistakes that have big effects on battleboarding efforts. Care with this sort of thing is good, but not something we'd rigidly mandate with demotions over stuff like this.
Translation Helpers aren't obligated to personally check every scan they post from a series they could translate; they're only obligated to personally check when they claim to have done so, even if implicitly by response to a translation request without qualifying with something like "I found this translation someone else did online".
So yeah, just posting a scan from a different decently-reputable translator should not be taken as a stamp of approval, and so, this translation falling short in that regard isn't a mark against Wankbreaker. It's just a reason to be diligent about this sort of thing in general.
Hell, even some very reputable stuff often ends up with tiny mistakes that have big effects on battleboarding efforts. Care with this sort of thing is good, but not something we'd rigidly mandate with demotions over stuff like this.
- 1,249
- 1,165
I know uninvolved people aren't supposed to make a comment here, but I don't think it's very fair to say "Wankbreaker stated it wasn't their translation already" when he made this comment AFTER tdjwo had made his comment about the translation. This would imply that Wankbreaker had stated that it was not his translation, then tdjwo made his claims when in reality, tdjwo made his claims first, then Wankbreaker stated it was not his translation in the first place, which wasn't information that existed when tdjwo did his report.
I'm not saying that Wankbreaker has done anything rvr worthy, but it's somewhat unfair to tdjwo since it's likely he didn't know this was not Wankbreaker's translation when making the claims he did and had Wankbreaker stated in his original comment that this was not his translation, this whole debacle may have been avoided.
I'm not saying that Wankbreaker has done anything rvr worthy, but it's somewhat unfair to tdjwo since it's likely he didn't know this was not Wankbreaker's translation when making the claims he did and had Wankbreaker stated in his original comment that this was not his translation, this whole debacle may have been avoided.
- 18,197
- 19,635
True, but I'd more put that on Tdjwo jumping the gun. We shouldn't expect Translation Helpers to label every single scan they could've translated but didn't.
For what it's worth, I don't think Tdjwo should receive any sort of punishment for his actions here, from what I've seen.
- 1,728
- 1,633
He was told about this a couple of days ago in my discord server,just an FYI
- 9,136
- 9,991
Again, use of an inaccurate translation can happen time to time. That's not an issue.
The issue I see is the unfounded accusation of bias as a translator.
- 13,880
- 22,736
I just know that there's been beef between these two for a while, as Tdjwo believes Wankbreaker to be heavily downplaying Nasuverse while Wankbreaker believes the opposite of Tdjwo. Problem, though, is that this is seeping into unfounded accusations that seem to be made out of a belief that these translations are being made to further push this "downplaying agenda." I'm not gonna act like I think things are all fine and dandy on the other side (like, I think coming in naming yourself "Wankbreaker" is just an unnecessary display of arrogance imo) but that's not really relevant to this case
If there's hard evidence of Wankbreaker manipulating translations, that's one thing. But if not, I'd say that's a rule violation on Tdjwo's part. It's attempted defamation, within the scope of the wiki, pretty much
If there's hard evidence of Wankbreaker manipulating translations, that's one thing. But if not, I'd say that's a rule violation on Tdjwo's part. It's attempted defamation, within the scope of the wiki, pretty much
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Bureaucrat
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 25,072
- 29,765
The question, then, becomes to what extent we wish to dissuade people from reporting staff members, if it can be interpreted as an attack. Obviously such things can be weaponized, and in the case of random beef between these two it lends itself to that interpretation, but consider the opposite end: if it was found that Wank had done the things he is accused of, then we would consider it a boon on Tdjwo's part. From where I sit, it seems possible, if not plausible, that Tdjwo is overzealous in his squabbling with Wank, and in that state of mind can legitimately see what to all of us appears as an honest error as an attempt at manipulation.
Now, this still remains an unfavorable state of affairs- we don't want users who don't like particular staff members constantly looking for anything that might be interpreted as foul play and using it to cause trouble, knowingly or otherwise. We don't want to encourage random witch hunts.
I say all of this to explain my thoughts. My opinion on whether to consider this a rule violation: I dislike the idea for this first infraction, acknowledging that WB did nothing wrong (I dislike typing his full name and yet shortening it isn't actually very good either). If it is widely agreed that it is a rule violation in that he was overeager to find fault in WB that he overstepped and made a mountain out of a mole hill, I think at best it would be a formal warning.
- 13,880
- 22,736
Well, my recommendation is that rather than bringing it up in a public thread (which is what led to him being reported), I'd have encouraged Tdjwo to report WB to HR if he felt so strongly about this. That way, it could be handled in a more controlled manner as opposed to exploding as it has now.
As for the status of it being a rule violation, I think it's pretty clear that it is, but the point of contention is more what to do in response to it - due to the factors at play, as you've mentioned. I'd be okay with a formal warning
As for the status of it being a rule violation, I think it's pretty clear that it is, but the point of contention is more what to do in response to it - due to the factors at play, as you've mentioned. I'd be okay with a formal warning
- 19,336
- 12,058
Going back to Robo though? 3 staff agreed with a Thread Creation ban, but that wasn't applied yet
- 14,996
- 10,486
this is not true
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
i have been making matches that are not stomps and have improved
you are the one who should be reported for lying about me because you keep saying shit like i have been making bad fights over and over when this is not true at all
Last edited:
- 19,336
- 12,058
- 14,996
- 10,486
i literally replied to chariot about this
wdym "i can't do anything?"
what you can do is admit that you were wrong about this
see now you're just going to stay quiet and not reply to this message
Last edited:
Baken384
He/Him- 4,126
- 4,680
Dude, quit being so obnoxious and acting like a victim that you don't know you were making "Spite" Matches. In the thread, you made the most obvious Spite Match with Diavolo vs Hit
Once it gained interactions due to how dumb it is, you proceed to change it with another spite match, you changed the match how many times already
"Calm down im cooking something special." Yeah bro, you know you were posting rat matches from the start
Baken384
He/Him- 4,126
- 4,680
Your action with Hit vs Diavolo says otherwise Mr “everyone calm down im cooking something special then proceeds to make spite matches after farming interaction”
- 19,336
- 12,058
Ah yes, somehow, Diavolo, a Tier 8 character who doesn't have any durability negation hax, is a good fight for Hit, who is several infinities above him in both AP and Dura.
How dumb do you think we are?
- 19,336
- 12,058
Literally seeing the profile tells you that's not that great of an ability against characters absurdly stronger than him.
Again, do you think we're this dumb, or are you completely incapable of comprehending what's a stomp?
Last edited:
- 177,665
- 90,696
- Thread starter
- #28,458
Just a note that I agree with Agnaa about that Wankbreaker should not be punished, and with bambu about that a standard warning should be sufficient for Tdjwo. Thank you for helping out. 
- 1,356
- 482
Sorry I have to jump in...even if you think that, if you see the profiles you would see differently. Or you could look around and ask people who scale JoJo to get an insight of Diavolo just in case.
But still Hit outscales Diavolo in every way and I am surprised you thought this was a good match?
At least when I started making MUs I learned from stop making stomp matches.
- 19,336
- 12,058
"Low Hax" how is Time Erase a hax
- 19,336
- 12,058
Nobody is saying you do on purpose.
Just that you're incapable of avoid doing stomps (even if not intentionally), so that you should be temporarily banned in order for you to think more about it and actually learn.
- 18,197
- 19,635
@Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer That question is better suited for a Q&A thread, due to there not really being an active rule violation that ought be stopped.
Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer
Any/All- 2,050
- 920
Oh OK thanks for the info
- 4,744
- 7,350
I've been asked to comment here regarding the issue with Robo432343.
Looking at Robo's history broadly, as well as the previous time Robo was reported for similar issues, I would prefer to opt for a strict warning before a thread ban or similar restriction on creating versus threads.
As far as I can tell, the last time this issue was brought up on the RVRT, it was ultimately dropped by the original reporter after a short digression and did not result in any action. Robo does have two warnings on the Warning Tracker - one for making a CRT with a misleading title, and one for making a derailing post on the RVRT - the former being about 1 year ago and the latter about 5 months ago. Neither of these are particularly severe offenses, both were quite some time ago, and importantly, neither are particularly relevant to the issue at hand. So, if my research is correct, I believe Robo has never been warned about this issue or anything closely related.
It is true that these stomp threads appear to reoccur, but looking at Robo's history, including several of the threads they linked themselves, I don't really think this is intentional or malicious. For the notable number of poorly considered matches they have posted, there's also more than enough perfectly ordinary or thoroughly debated matches as well. Perhaps I'm misguided by a perspective from the outside looking in, but it just looks to me like Robo just posts a lot of matches in general and often doesn't properly research the characters in advance to determine if it's an appropriate matchup.
This has gone on for some time, and as of the recent report, it has clearly reached the point of being bothersome to some users. But for someone who is doing - in the grand scheme of things - a not particularly severe offense, one for which improvements could easily be made, there is limited evidence regarding malicious intent, and for which they have never been warned for before, I think enacting a punishment in this case would be both heavy-handed and not really conducive to Robo improving in this area in the future. I would opt for an instructional warning, with guidelines on interpreting character profiles and identifying fair matchups, rather than a punishment at this stage. If issues were to continue past this point, I would reconsider my stance.
Looking at Robo's history broadly, as well as the previous time Robo was reported for similar issues, I would prefer to opt for a strict warning before a thread ban or similar restriction on creating versus threads.
As far as I can tell, the last time this issue was brought up on the RVRT, it was ultimately dropped by the original reporter after a short digression and did not result in any action. Robo does have two warnings on the Warning Tracker - one for making a CRT with a misleading title, and one for making a derailing post on the RVRT - the former being about 1 year ago and the latter about 5 months ago. Neither of these are particularly severe offenses, both were quite some time ago, and importantly, neither are particularly relevant to the issue at hand. So, if my research is correct, I believe Robo has never been warned about this issue or anything closely related.
It is true that these stomp threads appear to reoccur, but looking at Robo's history, including several of the threads they linked themselves, I don't really think this is intentional or malicious. For the notable number of poorly considered matches they have posted, there's also more than enough perfectly ordinary or thoroughly debated matches as well. Perhaps I'm misguided by a perspective from the outside looking in, but it just looks to me like Robo just posts a lot of matches in general and often doesn't properly research the characters in advance to determine if it's an appropriate matchup.
This has gone on for some time, and as of the recent report, it has clearly reached the point of being bothersome to some users. But for someone who is doing - in the grand scheme of things - a not particularly severe offense, one for which improvements could easily be made, there is limited evidence regarding malicious intent, and for which they have never been warned for before, I think enacting a punishment in this case would be both heavy-handed and not really conducive to Robo improving in this area in the future. I would opt for an instructional warning, with guidelines on interpreting character profiles and identifying fair matchups, rather than a punishment at this stage. If issues were to continue past this point, I would reconsider my stance.
- 14,188
- 7,434
I don't know if it counts as a report, but this guy is saying something 18+ on the site
vsbattles.com
Monkey interacts with radiation | 0-0-0
Goku isn't human, so that comparison would fall flat. However you might have a point if Garou uses his GRB, then again were Saiyans actually be shown to be weakened by Radiation levels or is it speculation? Also I'm pretty sure saiyans have the ability to create artificial moons which emit...
- 4,744
- 7,350
I don't really have the time to attend to this situation at this moment, but I've deleted the offending comment and the replies containing it. I think this is a fairly obvious rule violation, but unless it's not been handled by the time I'm available, I'll leave this matter to the other evaluating staff.I don't know if it counts as a report, but this guy is saying something 18+ on the site
Monkey interacts with radiation | 0-0-0
Goku isn't human, so that comparison would fall flat. However you might have a point if Garou uses his GRB, then again were Saiyans actually be shown to be weakened by Radiation levels or is it speculation? Also I'm pretty sure saiyans have the ability to create artificial moons which emit...
- 14,996
- 10,486
can someone please close this threadI don't know if it counts as a report, but this guy is saying something 18+ on the site
Monkey interacts with radiation | 0-0-0
Goku isn't human, so that comparison would fall flat. However you might have a point if Garou uses his GRB, then again were Saiyans actually be shown to be weakened by Radiation levels or is it speculation? Also I'm pretty sure saiyans have the ability to create artificial moons which emit...
it is a very obvious stomp
i cant believe im the one saying this
- 12,490
- 16,861
I checked their posting history. I would support a warning and that's it, as the last comment they made that could've been taken as provocative (particularly towards OPM supporters) was done on 2022
- 5,138
- 4,219
Reporting @Tjdwo, It is clear he is trying to just get rid of any people that disagree with him, or his opinion. Not only did he falsely accuse @Wankbreaker of "biased transitions" with no real evidence, but he is also trying to get rid of him completely from the thread. This is pretty clear cut, he is just trying to get rid of people disagreeing with him, and what he wants.
It is clear as day, he is doing whatever he possibly can to get rid of opposition. What better way than to target the most active user, who just happens to be a translator?
It is clear as day, he is doing whatever he possibly can to get rid of opposition. What better way than to target the most active user, who just happens to be a translator?
Tdjwo
He/Him- 3,311
- 1,488
I'll love to see where exactly I violated any rule here. Please show me exactly which rule I violated because I can't see it at all. I'm reporting wankbreaker because he's made multiple comments without asking for permissions and here you are crying about me trying to "get rid of him?" How is reporting someone for not asking for perms a rule violation?
- 1,728
- 1,633
Just to clarify, I previously asked Antvasima for permission, and he obliged.
KingNanaya
He/Him- 3,163
- 4,395
yeah, no. he was saying that he should ask to receive permission to make repeated comments, as @Wankbreaker hadn't received indefinite comment permission as he had claimed.
https://cdn.**********.com/attachments/520049258913726483/1302000651190141069/image.png?ex=67268619&is=67253499&hm=25584b32f0ed2353e7c83e7362a512d7c66c6b9288983ad57059d3a8db9e88a4&
- 5,138
- 4,219
idk, maybe due to him already Having Ant's premission to comment there, and being somewhat of a staff member, but more importantly. A offical translater on the wiki, being in a thread, where one of the main issues is translation?
KingNanaya
He/Him- 3,163
- 4,395
Apparently, translation helpers still need permission to make comments in threads.
Tdjwo
He/Him- 3,311
- 1,488
Or maybe if you stopped crying and actually used your eyes to read the comment I reported, you would know it had nothing to do with translation. And even if it did, him being "somewhat" of a staff member doesnt automatically make him immune to permission requests.
Last edited:
- 1,728
- 1,633
Again, bureaucrats have explicit permission to allow for unlimited comments, something ant doesn’t speak against.
The first time I asked, he explicitly said a “few comments”, I asked again, and he allowed me to continue posting without citing anything that would imply a specific number.
KingNanaya
He/Him- 3,163
- 4,395
can you please show where this was? I had looked on his wall, and this was the only post relating to posting permissions on the thread that I saw.
- 13,880
- 22,736
There's a clear miscommunication here so I think the easiest way to handle this would be to ask Ant to clarify if the perms he gave were indefinite or not
