• 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)

He's right, do try to remember next time. Not a big deal but we separate them to control cluttering this thread.
 
Demon_Lord18 said:
This should be here

vsbattles.com

Wiki Vandalism Reports

This thread will be used to report edits to any of our wiki pages that are considered unacceptable by our wiki's standards. Reports here should cover the following types of violations: Vandalism and trolling in our wiki pages Bad edits that violate our guidelines regarding structure formats...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com
Click to expand...
Mr. Bambu said:
He's right, do try to remember next time. Not a big deal but we separate them to control cluttering this thread.
Click to expand...
My deepest apologies, I was not aware of that thread.
 
No problem. It is an easy mistake to make. 🙏

Also, @BigSmoke4269 wonders about if his editing restrictions can be adjusted.

vsbattles.fandom.com

BigSmoke4269

vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com
 
I already spoke on this 2 months ago. Why wasn't it lifted then.

Ya'll are really making me appear like my PFP-- Yes, he was held to my standards on profile-creation as that evolved. Anything he puts out should be at the minimum standards for what is considered "Decent" or even "Good" to MY standards. AKA, references on anything even kind of major required, scans enjoyed overall.

I will now return to being threadbanned now, since I have one of these bad boys framed on my metaphorical wall.
 
DaReaperMan said:
I already spoke on this 2 months ago. Why wasn't it lifted then.
Click to expand...
Probably because you mentioned it in private, so I forgot about mentioning it here afterwards. My apologies. 🙏
DaReaperMan said:
Ya'll are really making me appear like my PFP-- Yes, he was held to my standards on profile-creation as that evolved. Anything he puts out should be at the minimum standards for what is considered "Decent" or even "Good" to MY standards. AKA, references on anything even kind of major required, scans enjoyed overall.
Click to expand...
Okay. It seems good to me if that restriction is lifted then. 🙏
DaReaperMan said:
I will now return to being threadbanned now, since I have one of these bad boys framed on my metaphorical wall.
Click to expand...
I have handled it. You can contact one of our current super moderators if you want your thread ban lifted again and are able to control your impulsivity in this regard. 🙏
 
Thank you for helping out. 🙏
 
Karabach-barabach said:
Real quick clarification: what's a "sock"?
Click to expand...
Multiple accounts of the same person and/or false identities, often to try to bypass bans to troll or things like that
adorable-hand-puppet-show-kids.jpg
 
Minor note. I am issuing a warning to @Chariot190 for disruptive behavior in this thread.

Posts here, here, here, here, here, here... and more. Reading through it, other users were cordial until pressed upon by Chariot. Mixed with more recent unnecessarily arguing with myself (beginning here). The most egregious comments were those leveled at Omnificence, I think, such that others even acknowledged they were uncalled for. So, just letting y'all know.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
Minor note. I am issuing a warning to @Chariot190 for disruptive behavior in this thread.

Posts here, here, here, here, here, here... and more. Reading through it, other users were cordial until pressed upon by Chariot. Mixed with more recent unnecessarily arguing with myself (beginning here). The most egregious comments were those leveled at Omnificence, I think, such that others even acknowledged they were uncalled for. So, just letting y'all know.
Click to expand...
This kinda cherrypicks some comments out such as the one with Omnificence where Chariot is responding to him asking Chariot why is he even on the wiki or the fact that most of those comments you pulled were from a portion where Chariot was arguing against a circular arguments from like 4 other people for like 4 pages straight trying to explain how the use of game mechanics to justify upgrades was wrong. Yeah he was frustrated over arguing something so blatantly wrong being done over 4 pages but he's not being overtly disrespectful or anything or the sort. So he swears when he talks? I do to all the time on the wiki its like how normal people talk irl. I do feel this to be overblown a bit especially considering @CloverDragon03 also called you out too in the thread for your behavior as well


Both of you should just leave it at that and let staff review the CRT normally
 
Dalesean027 said:
This kinda cherrypicks some comments out such as the one with Omnificence where Chariot is responding to him asking Chariot why is he even on the wiki or the fact that most of those comments you pulled were from a portion where Chariot was arguing against a circular arguments from like 4 other people for like 4 pages straight trying to explain how the use of game mechanics to justify upgrades was wrong. Yeah he was frustrated over arguing something so blatantly wrong being done over 4 pages but he's not being overtly disrespectful or anything or the sort. So he swears when he talks? I do to all the time on the wiki its like how normal people talk irl. I do feel this to be overblown a bit especially considering @CloverDragon03 also called you out too in the thread for your behavior as well


Both of you should just leave it at that and let staff review the CRT normally
Click to expand...
Yep. Other people should be kind as well. Chariot arguing for multiple pages doesn't really justify his comments, and many users were not engaging in the same rhetoric against him (Imaginym is one of the most consistently calm and mild-mannered people on this site, even). He is being overly disrespectful, and how you talk is not really comparable to him, even if you feel it is.

This isn't about reviewing the CRT, shouldn't be made out to be such. This is about breaking the rules since last month. Your defense of Chariot is duly noted, however.
 
I'm having issues with StrymULTRA's attitude in this thread: https://vsbattles.com/threads/smash-bros-immeasurable-speed-revision.175466/

https://vsbattles.com/threads/smash-bros-immeasurable-speed-revision.175466/#post-6912514 He first replies "You saying that because you don't want it to be Immeasurable isn't an argument." to a comment with arguments in them. And calls my attempt to use consistency as 1 of the reasons to disagree with him "the most dishonest argument by you," w/o saying what would be dishonest about the rest of what I said.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/smash-bros-immeasurable-speed-revision.175466/#post-6913088 I point out the faults in his attitude and he's either apathetic or bites back. He claims that I attempt to downplay with my comments, but I have arguments he's yet to reply to to this moment. I point out how he uses whataboutism and he replies "Don't call it that if you can't counter it. Oh wait, I remember you trying to refute DBH being Immeasurable too in the past and that was rejected, mh." He replies to something I say with "This is just your warped definition of people debunking you, but whatever makes you chill." but doesn't say how I have that warped definition beyond just disagreeing with me.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/smash-bros-immeasurable-speed-revision.175466/#post-6913223 I point out the faults in his attitude and he's apathetic.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/smash-bros-immeasurable-speed-revision.175466/#post-6913978 I point out how he was apathetic & gave a non-response in a section of the comment above, he replies "You talk as if I'm objectively wrong. I'm not falling for this bullshit, Efi, instead of whining just focus on the argument rather than using gaslighting tactics in an attempt to trick me in changing my mind. I'm not replying to any more points that aren't about the feat, because it's getting ridiculous." He doesn't back up how I'm wrong and using gaslighting tactics, and doesn't reply to the rest my issues I had with his attitude.

I can't possibly follow this in the thread, could somebody care to look at it, talk with him elsewhere, and make sure he understands what the issues are?
 
I agree with Bambu regarding Chariot's behavior on that thread; he has acted like that in nearly every debate her enters for a long time. And it was why the HR decided to demote him. And there we even almost considered giving him a short ban for that time he literally harassed me in DMs. But it seems demoting him hasn't really settled down his less than stellar behavior. But perhaps more higher up staff may need input regarding that.

As for the Styrm report, while I'm not really saying he's the most civilized user, Eficiente really isn't behaving that much better tbh; some of his responses to Styrm were moderately pompous.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
Posts here, here, here, here, here, here... and more. Reading through it, other users were cordial until pressed upon by Chariot. Mixed with more recent unnecessarily arguing with myself (beginning here). The most egregious comments were those leveled at Omnificence, I think, such that others even acknowledged they were uncalled for. So, just letting y'all know.
Click to expand...
For the record, having read through this thread, I endorse this warning. Though I believe it would be productive to specify further the main issues I observed here, especially so because he was reported and demoted for similar issues in the past. I believe that any future discussion of this should be built on the knowledge that specific direction has been given in this case.

I can't speak on Bambu's behalf as to what they thought the substance of the report was, but my concern was predominantly with these issues: the repeated targeted and accusatory comments made against particular users, most notably towards Omnificence, Eden_Warlock99, and Imaginym, were very much disproportionate to any trigger that may have incited them in the discussion of the thread itself. Questioning whether there are ulterior motives in a debate partner is one thing - perhaps it was phrased impolitely, but Chariot frequently noting things like, for example, that he believed he was being strawmanned or that his opponents were incredulous is not something I can strictly speak against him for in isolation - but the comments Chariot made throughout this thread routinely derailed off of the main point to make a jab at the individual behind them without necessity. For a select few examples:

This is super desperate grasping, like actual cope arguments at this point, you know damn well what they mean, let's not pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...
Because it's so obvious that the fact you're even arguing this is legitimate baffling to me?
Click to expand...
I hate this so much.... Why are you ignoring the entire premise of the game and absolutely everything they say?
Click to expand...
Because of people like you apparently.
Click to expand...
Not an argument, you think Wario sat on his ass for half an hour? When he was literally there?
Click to expand...
Being a funny color name doesn't give you free reign to yap against majority.
Click to expand...

I consider these statements especially egregious in the context for a couple of reasons: one, the statements against Imaginym in particular were clearly not triggered by anything substantial. Imaginym, despite disagreeing, made many efforts throughout the thread to express that he was not intending to offend Chariot and offered almost entirely decent expressions of disagreement; Chariot's comments were unquestionably the instigator of conflict there, and there is no reason to think anything wrong would have happened if it were not for the hostility of his input. Secondly, while Chariot making certain comments against the intentions of the other users are contentious to report in isolation (in the sense of, where is the line drawn between an earnest concern about ulterior motives versus an attempt to redirect the argument to someone's character?), it's marked that Chariot was intent on expressing that he thought other's accusatory comments against him were inappropriate:

Though to call me dishonest isn't arguing in good faith though, I pray I don't need to call you out on that. Where calling me dishonest is a blatant accusation, one that doesn't even hold up.
Click to expand...
I don't care if you don't think it isn't condescending, I'm sure we both know it doesn't matter what one's self thinks in regards to how they talk, word stuff, yadda yadda, I'm telling you don't. Don't like it.
Click to expand...

Despite these issues being of very similar nature to the accusations he expressed to others throughout the thread. These comments by Bambu were sometimes impolite, and it's possible they could have been written due to resentment towards Chariot - but the core issue would still remain. Consistently, I did not believe reading through this thread that Chariot was holding himself to the same standards of conduct as other people; I believed that he was aggressive and demeaning and repeatedly turned the matter on the characters of the individuals in question, while insisting that others were wrong for doing a portion of the same to him. Even recognising that I would have wanted Bambu to phrase some things differently, I think this was indicative of a lapse of good will debating on the part of Chariot.

@Chariot190 I'm bringing this matter to you personally, because you are aware that you have been reported for similar conduct in the past and demoted because of it. The understanding was that a demotion was a noteworthy enough punishment that future discussions would not result in these issues, and that hasn't happened. This is about the same type of issue that you were demoted for previously, and I largely knew that this would occur, because I am aware you expressed to others you didn't take your reasons for your demotion seriously. I am fine with leaving this as a warning, because all I want out of this situation is future improvements; for you and others to be able to partake in this community in a civil manner and for that to be all she wrote. But I would like to be clear that I'm not happy to see that this matter has been brought up again, and that I would consider advocating for further action if this continued. In the inverse, if you have issues with the conduct of other users, you can always bring them through the relevant channels and I would make an effort to see them evaluated impartially.
 
Dalesean027 said:
This kinda cherrypicks some comments out such as the one with Omnificence where Chariot is responding to him asking Chariot why is he even on the wiki or the fact that most of those comments you pulled were from a portion where Chariot was arguing against a circular arguments from like 4 other people for like 4 pages straight trying to explain how the use of game mechanics to justify upgrades was wrong. Yeah he was frustrated over arguing something so blatantly wrong being done over 4 pages but he's not being overtly disrespectful or anything or the sort. So he swears when he talks? I do to all the time on the wiki its like how normal people talk irl. I do feel this to be overblown a bit especially considering @CloverDragon03 also called you out too in the thread for your behavior as well


Both of you should just leave it at that and let staff review the CRT normally
Click to expand...
Since I was mentioned, I should mention that I still think Bambu wasn't exactly playing nice either which kinda turns this into a case of "not even practicing what you preach" for me. But I suppose that's not necessarily for this thread
 
I am fine fine with GrathOfLux's conclusions here.

Also, can other staff members evaluate Eficiente's complaints please? 🙏
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
As for the Styrm report, while I'm not really saying he's the most civilized user, Eficiente really isn't behaving that much better tbh; some of his responses to Styrm were moderately pompous.
Click to expand...
Could you site those ones please? Also, this comment comes across as odd to me; I point out a user misbehaving, and you don't reply to it, you reflect it back at me; Does this mean those moderately pompous responses were misbehavior as well? If so, I would like to know how so so I can do better, or source this as an example of what's viewed as misbehavior. If they're not misbehavior, well, that's the odd part.

This can be in a pm.
 
Eficiente said:
Could you site those ones please? Also, this comment comes across as odd to me; I point out a user misbehaving, and you don't reply to it, you reflect it back at me; Does this mean those moderately pompous responses were misbehavior as well? If so, I would like to know how so so I can do better, or source this as an example of what's viewed as misbehavior. If they're not misbehavior, well, that's the odd part.

This can be in a pm.
Click to expand...
This first sentence here was pompous.
Eficiente said:
Don't make stuff up. My first argument was 1 interpretation being more likely than another interpretation due to being simpler, the other being literally infinitely more complex. That's a logical throughline, you don't see it and so you don't counter it.
Click to expand...
And aside from that, while not really violations or against the rules, "Whataboutism" allegations IMO seem to be based on gross misunderstandings. A lot of people are in the mentality that "Whataboutism" simply means bringing up other verses. But the dictionary definition of "Whataboutism" is basically trying to respond to an allegation or difficult question with an even bigger allegation or more difficult question. I do not think making a simple statement about Dragon Ball Heroes having Immeasurable via objects that travel forward and backwards in time with ease. Responding to an interrogative sentence with another interrogative sentence is more or less what a whataboutism is; it's hard for declarative sentences to be classified as such.
StrymULTRA said:
You saying that because you don't want it to be Immeasurable isn't an argument.
Click to expand...
Is probably a whataboutism, but
StrymULTRA said:
We literally have Dragon Ball Heroes' Dark Dragon Balls to be Immeasurable off the same argument too after all, this isn't any different.
Click to expand...
is not really a whataboutism.

I don't really have much to say regarding some other things you linked and do not think many other comments were too bad. I agree Strym should avoid calling you "Lil Bro," and that some of his earlier posts are more accusatory than necessary. But I actually do agree with him that simply saying "Whataboutism" isn't a proper counterargument to some of those points.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
This first sentence here was pompous.
Click to expand...
I shouldn't say "Don't make stuff up." to reply to "You saying that because you don't want it to be Immeasurable isn't an argument." when I actually made arguments? I would like to know what do other staff think of this, if possible.

Edit: It puts my efforts to disagree with a thread as me being petty enough to work based on not wanting a proposal, ruining everything for everyone, which in turn severely poisons my image for future threads. The accusation is massive & has no reason to be, so he would need to make it up bc he felt like saying that, if anything that's a pretty chill reply to give from my part. I can't avoid thinking that it being pompous puts on the table an unfair lack of tolerance on me, am I showing disrespect to how he reasoned that my arguments are based on pettiness yet didn't explain how so? Lowing that reasoning as "making stuff up"?
DarkDragonMedeus said:
"Whataboutism" allegations IMO seem to be based on gross misunderstandings. A lot of people are in the mentality that "Whataboutism" simply means bringing up other verses. But the dictionary definition of "Whataboutism" is basically trying to respond to an allegation or difficult question with an even bigger allegation or more difficult question. I do not think making a simple statement about Dragon Ball Heroes having Immeasurable via objects that travel forward and backwards in time with ease. Responding to an interrogative sentence with another interrogative sentence is more or less what a whataboutism is; it's hard for declarative sentences to be classified as such.

Is probably a whataboutism, but

is not really a whataboutism.
Click to expand...
DarkDragonMedeus said:
But I actually do agree with him that simply saying "Whataboutism" isn't a proper counterargument to some of those points.
Click to expand...
I made 2 arguments (Here), he quotes part of 1, and doesn't reply to the argument, but does bring up how what I go against has been accepted before. If the point is used to deflect and avoid addressing a specific argument, it falls under Whataboutism (I'm sure he didn't mean to). He claims the argument is the same, but it's not and a new discussion emerges.
 
Last edited:
Last comment on the topic. The thread is closed now, but Strym said some more stuff after the ones I quoted.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/smash-bros-immeasurable-speed-revision.175466/#post-6916400 He mocks how I bring up would-be fights at Immeasurable speed having within a timeframe as a contradiction as "huh huh timeframe = speed is bunk!!!"

This one takes some context
  1. https://vsbattles.com/threads/smash-bros-immeasurable-speed-revision.175466/#post-6916333 I explain why "The ability to time travel"/hax is the same as Immeasurable speed in a certain context, and that therefore there are no grounds to claim Immeasurable speed when certain feats happen.
  2. https://vsbattles.com/threads/smash-bros-immeasurable-speed-revision.175466/#post-6916352
  3. https://vsbattles.com/threads/smash-bros-immeasurable-speed-revision.175466/#post-6916410 A user replies with a simple comment saying that, that ability and Immeasurable speed are different, which is covered by my arguments as it explains that they're different. I tell him that it doesn't address anything, that if they replace a word they said for the word I used (they're synonyms), and it becomes clearer to see how my argument covers their comment. I tell them to please read my comment again.
  4. https://vsbattles.com/threads/smash-bros-immeasurable-speed-revision.175466/#post-6916413 StrymULTRA replies "Efi can you ******* stop pretending that the only explanation for people disagreeing with you is not reading and/or understanding your arguments? They do, and they still disagree with you at that, it's not like the only reason is them not being able to comprehend what you're saying. It's pretty damn annoying and even looking condescending."
You can see that he made the comment 3 minutes away from mine. He didn't try to understand where I'm coming from and if I might be correct. I'm just wrong, terribly pretending like another didn't understand something, and Strym couldnt take it anymore. Worse, he's under the impression that this is common for me, and in this thread he has very much not understood my arguments more than once, hence I needed to ask for clarification not present in his comments and he in turn gave clarification. How do you hate me so much that you misremember regular actions I did as terrible things I did? It's clearly unhealthy, people doesn't misremember things like that, if he had any proof I was pretending he didn't understand my comments, he would have said so at the time every time in the thread.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/smash-bros-immeasurable-speed-revision.175466/page-2#post-6916434 Strym justifies himself by ignoring the situation all together, which he can't justify, and excuses himself on how the claimed bad thing I did was done in another unrelated thread from another verse, which I can't possibly reply to in a Smash Bros. thread. I tell him to talk me on private on that other thread if he wanted to hear what I had to say about it, but I don't think he's ever going to do that. And that would be all fine & good, if it was known to me that he will actually stop using it as an example. It's disturbing hearing him say bits of wisdom like "Sometimes you have to accept that people simply disagree with you because they simply don't buy your reasons" when I have my reasons as to why others may not address my arguments. He didn't properly care to see if I was wrong to begin with and doesn't care about if I prove myself correct.

In the debate across the thread;
  • he's quick to misunderstand what I say into something worse,
  • constantly acts casually in the way he misjudges flaws as if to emphasize how clear my errors are, which seems pretty forced,
  • and he seems to understand when I make arguments I agrees with or can't reply to, but every time that happens he just ignores making any comment about it.
  • Among it, he misremembers things I do or I already argued for, coming up with things I already argued against before that he didn't reply to at the time.
It all makes it impossible to believe the sincerity behind otherwise fine comments like "This is just your argument from incredulity, got it." "Very ironic coming from you." "Brotha, you started to grasp to every silly reason ever to dismiss the feat" etc. As in, I'm sure he believes them all himself, but I don't believe the amount of patience he has for me is healthy. I think he hates me enough to actively avoid talking formally to get away with as much of a "Look how stupid this is" tone as reasonably possible, and he enjoys making fun of me like that. It's not some 4D chess maneuver, just a very common tactic people like this can use.

I'm not offended by him, just annoyed. He needs to recognize the problem so that they may not happen again. Even if I never talk with him again, I would be at peace if he could understand all the issues. If a staff could look at the situation, talk with him about it, and then please tell me if he understands the issues brought up, I would appreciate that.
 
Yeah, this time, Styrm did not settle down with the harsh comments. While I do agree with him regarding the outcome of the thread regarding Immeasurable speed (Not relevant here though), he desperately does need to settle down his tone and language in future threads. "LMAO" is not an appropriate response when trying to have a civilized debate with someone. I also did see Eficiente at least tried to improve his behavior in the future posts and acknowledge some things said in the past, but Styrm continued to be harsher than necessary going down the line
 
I suppose I'll give my answer here.

I simply tried to point out the (personally felt) absurdity of Eficiente's points, though I admit I wasn't exactly nice at it, and looking back at the thread I admit I could've worded better some rebuttals, and I didn't answer to some things as I didn't want to derail the discussion and only focus on OP.

Some things like "I replied after 3 minutes" however is because I'm a fast reader than me not bothering to read things, though yeah I definitely did go overboard with it, as I forgot that professionalism and cooling down are vital here and I overreacted at the disagreement (and yeah I could've avoided the "Lmao", thinking back at it).

I'll go by whatever y'all decide, I just don't want a serious beef in Christmas' Eve of all days.
 
Reading through Eficiente's report and the relevant thread, I would agree that Strym is crossing lines that ought not be crossed. Efi may be disagreed with, and sticking to his conclusions can be frustrating when you feel yourself correct, but Strym is lashing out in practically every message. I note Efi himself is relatively reserved in his responses- this does not mean we cannot interpret aggression in them (just more dressed up), but here I don't think there's enough to say it's two people butting heads. Strym just is aggressing.

As such, I'll sign off on a warning for Strym. I don't care who it is you're talking with, the adage applies: play nice. DDM agreed above, so as it is a relatively minor dispute, I will add it to the Warning Tracker before it is forgotten.
 
Last edited:

We probably shouldn't continue down this line of conversation anymore. Discussing the morality of killing another human being, regardless of personal opinion about said human's actions in life, is completely inappropriate for this forum. We're a site dedicated to indexing and debating about fictional characters. Not a political forum to air out grievances about Healthcare in America.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

FinePoint
Discussion Rule Word Salad
Replies
20
Views
1K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Agnaa
Fanart Rule Revamp
Replies
7
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
FinePoint
  • Locked
Clarifying Death Threat Rules
2
Replies
64
Views
6K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Kachon123
One Piece: Planet Size Discussion Rule
Replies
14
Views
2K
RaikiKurohane99
RaikiKurohane99
FlipLaScript
Loosening Up Tier 1 Rules
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
Kanogami
Kanogami
Back
Top