• 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)

DarkDragonMedeus said:
I'm not sure what is really going on here, but I do think individuals may speak up to clarify. Though I do agree that Jason's allegations are quite unnecessary. Nothing ban worthy, but a request for him to settle down with those accusations is reasonable.
Click to expand...
I agree. This is more of a pressing issue if he genuinely did this on purpose(out of spite) instead of being ignorant about reading comprehension.
 
@DarkDragonMedeus @Reiner04
First of all, I will clarify what kind of arguments caused the dispute to begin with:
Yeah, I had the same thoughts and so did Ultima.
Click to expand...
No. Based on what I discussed with Ultima. He thinks the Todash space is not outside of everything nor the Macroverse.
Click to expand...
During the content revision process I initiated recently, a communication issue arose between me and the user Goofy. I felt the need to clarify this situation to prevent any misunderstandings.

Goofy stated that he had spoken with Ultima, a staff member, regarding the revision I proposed, and claimed that Ultima did not support it. However, this was not a statement made directly by Ultima, but rather Goofy’s interpretation of their discussion. Therefore, in order to receive a clear and direct opinion on the matter, I addressed Ultima directly with the message: “Could you please take a look at my content revision? I’m uncomfortable with Goofy speaking on your behalf.”

The purpose of this message was not to accuse anyone, but simply to seek the evaluation of a staff member directly, instead of relying on second-hand claims. Unfortunately, Goofy took offense to this and accused me of slandering him. In reality, all I did was request input from the relevant person and expressed that it was inappropriate for another user to speak in their name.

I want to make it clear that I had no intention of questioning Goofy’s motives. However, I believe that choosing to communicate directly with staff rather than relying on interpretations from others is a reasonable and constructive approach.

My request is this: Please evaluate this situation impartially. I have no intention of blaming any user or causing conflict—I simply want my content revision to be assessed properly.
 
Jason_Voorhees1986 said:
@DarkDragonMedeus @Reiner04
First of all, I will clarify what kind of arguments caused the dispute to begin with:


During the content revision process I initiated recently, a communication issue arose between me and the user Goofy. I felt the need to clarify this situation to prevent any misunderstandings.

Goofy stated that he had spoken with Ultima, a staff member, regarding the revision I proposed, and claimed that Ultima did not support it. However, this was not a statement made directly by Ultima, but rather Goofy’s interpretation of their discussion. Therefore, in order to receive a clear and direct opinion on the matter, I addressed Ultima directly with the message: “Could you please take a look at my content revision? I’m uncomfortable with Goofy speaking on your behalf.”
Click to expand...
Except that's not what speaking on someone's “behalf” is. I did not take Ultima as the voting party here which that voting party is myself. The discussion with Ultima isn't to play with his vote which I never had said anything along the lines of “Ultima clearly would disagree” as opposed to “I talked with him and what we discussed has my vote to sway to disagreeing” which again was already my stance. So, no, you're making some nonsensical point up again. Your quotes very much don't imply anything other than a surface-level view of trying to call a random speculation.
Jason_Voorhees1986 said:
The purpose of this message was not to accuse anyone, but simply to seek the evaluation of a staff member directly, instead of relying on second-hand claims. Unfortunately, Goofy took offense to this and accused me of slandering him. In reality, all I did was request input from the relevant person and expressed that it was inappropriate for another user to speak in their name.
Click to expand...
A request that did not need you to invoke my name.
Jason_Voorhees1986 said:
I want to make it clear that I had no intention of questioning Goofy’s motives. However, I believe that choosing to communicate directly with staff rather than relying on interpretations from others is a reasonable and constructive approach.

My request is this: Please evaluate this situation impartially. I have no intention of blaming any user or causing conflict—I simply want my content revision to be assessed properly.
Click to expand...
So you say? It's your own word against your own admission. You could choose to leave me out, but you didn't.
 
Last edited:
Reiner04 said:
Guess case is concluded then. Now the following needs to be done:
  1. Extend Astral's ban by 3 months.
  2. Discussion rule regarding ban on the use of human edited MTL for the verse unless approved by our TL members or someone fluent in Japanese.
  3. Reverting the changes made by Astral, preferably where he used MTLs or edited MTLs, including deletion of cosmology page temporarily (as it is entirety of Astral's Translation)
Discussion Rule that needs to be added:
Click to expand...
Due to the recurring issue of misleading or dishonest machine translations (edited-MTLs) in this verse, especially when used to support major arguments or upgrades, any human-edited MTLs are strictly prohibited unless they are verified by one of the official Translation Helpers (TLs) or a user with proven fluency in Japanese. This is to ensure accuracy, consistency, and prevent misinterpretation or manipulation of source material. Any future CRTs or profile changes that use unverified human-edited MTLs will be considered invalid and subject to reversal.
Click to expand...
@Antvasima What do you think about this discussion rule for tensura? Can it be added?
 
I personally think that it seems fine to add, but we need more staff approvals than just from me. 🙏
 
Reiner04 said:
@Antvasima What do you think about this discussion rule for tensura? Can it be added?
Click to expand...
I want to add something. If some people have the misconception that the translation made by the people I mentioned here will also be removed, I don't want to mislead them. These translations should stay unless the fan translations in the form of edited MTL are completely banned from the wiki, because they are quite good and reliable, in fact the translations by the wiki translators seem to be closer to this edited MTL than OTL. The only edited MTL, that doesn't come from a reliable source and have some big mistakes is the translation of Volume 21.
 
CodeCCLL said:
I want to add something. If some people have the misconception that the translation made by the people I mentioned here will also be removed, I don't want to mislead them. These translations should stay unless the fan translations in the form of edited MTL are completely banned from the wiki, because they are quite good and reliable, in fact the translations by the wiki translators seem to be closer to this edited MTL than OTL. The only edited MTL, that doesn't come from a reliable source and have some big mistakes is the translation of Volume 21.
Click to expand...
If edited MTL are coming from reliable people's then they will still be allowed.
Due to the recurring issue of misleading or dishonest machine translations (edited-MTLs) in this verse, especially when used to support major arguments or upgrades, any human-edited MTLs are strictly prohibited unless they are verified by one of the official Translation Helpers (TLs) or a user with proven fluency in Japanese. This is to ensure accuracy, consistency, and prevent misinterpretation or manipulation of source material. Any future CRTs or profile changes that use unverified human-edited MTLs will be considered invalid and subject to reversal
Click to expand...

Edit:
Antvasima said:
I personally think that it seems fine to add, but we need more staff approvals than just from me. 🙏
Click to expand...
Donezeo
vsbattles.com

Discussion Rule for Tensura

So, given the discussion that took place regarding Tensura translation issues in the RVR, and the general consensus on establishing strict rules against human-edited MTLs for the verse due to recurring issues with misleading and dishonest translations as described in following post. I propose...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com
 
Last edited:
Jason_Voorhees1986 said:
My request is this: Please evaluate this situation impartially. I have no intention of blaming any user or causing conflict—I simply want my content revision to be assessed properly.
Click to expand...
I've given my judgment regarding your case. I don't find it report-worthy, nor do I see your post as accusatory or an overreaction to the comments in question. Remarks quoting Ultima/Qawsedf/DT are often met with replies like 'Ultima can speak for himself', this happens quite frequently for me to put someone specific out of nowhere on the spot. I interpret your comment as a request for clarification from Ultima about his stance and opinion. So, I don't believe any action needs to be taken here. Now, I suggest that you and @VeryGoofyToddler2 refrain from making further comments to each other to avoid prolonging the debate. Let's wait for the opinions of other staff members.
 
Reiner04 said:
I've given my judgment regarding your case. I don't find it report-worthy, nor do I see your post as accusatory or an overreaction to the comments in question. Remarks quoting Ultima/Qawsedf/DT are often met with replies like 'Ultima can speak for himself', this happens quite frequently for me to put someone specific out of nowhere on the spot. I interpret your comment as a request for clarification from Ultima about his stance and opinion. So, I don't believe any action needs to be taken here. Now, I suggest that you and @VeryGoofyToddler2 refrain from making further comments to each other to avoid prolonging the debate. Let's wait for the opinions of other staff members.
Click to expand...
Okay, I agree with that.
 
I don't think this is just a case of friendly banter, but rather an intended mockery, a continuous and targeted at that (CodeCLL replied to his comment in the thread for which he went to his wall with intention to mock him). Considering his past offense was in July 2023, which was quite a while ago, I'm not sure if we should take that into account while deciding on the punishment for his current offense. However, I propose at least a one-month ban, others can adjust the ban length however they see fit.
 
Reiner04 said:
I don't think this is just a case of friendly banter, but rather an intended mockery, a continuous and targeted at that (CodeCLL replied to his comment in the thread for which he went to his wall with intention to mock him). Considering his past offense was in July 2023, which was quite a while ago, I'm not sure if we should take that into account while deciding on the punishment for his current offense. However, I propose at least a one-month ban, others can adjust the ban length however they see fit.
Click to expand...
Seems reasonable.
 
Hmm. The message wall comment was worse, but still not bad enough to warrant a ban as I perceive it. 🙏
 
So would a warning message be acceptable, and if so, is some staff member here willing to apply it, including to our public warning tracker? 🙏
 
Something that is worthy of bringing up is that it seems like @Hellscream actions have been consistent.

Even after his first action, some small digging I found a report regarding similar actions from this November. (Note - The report was not regarding him, but he was "guilty" of the same issue)
While from memory regarding the report, it was not enough to actually punch them, but it should prove that the actions he is taking are consistent.

Also, looking at a quick look into his recent history, I found these 2 comments, while not report worthy, it again strengthens the argument that he is intentionally antagonistic.
 
Last edited:
Well, a strict warning seems warranted to start with then. If he continues to be repeatedly hostile, we can apply a temporary ban later. 🙏
 
Antvasima said:
So would a warning message be acceptable, and if so, is some staff member here willing to apply it, including to our public warning tracker? 🙏
Click to expand...
The reason I advocated for a ban is because he was already banned for 3 months in the past for a similar situation and has been reported even after that. But I guess we can give him one more chance to see if the behavior is still consistent or not. I added it to warning tracker.
 
Okay so, considering the report that was made i should atleast be able to defend myself right?

First of all, I stand with what I said in the thread itself, about the verse basically being built upon the usage of fake / wrong translations which is very apparent. So I really don't see the issue here about all this "slander, hostile comments" etc.

I've seen the threads here about the usage of those fake translation in particular and they were used to get the verse to higher tiers.
I've also seen off-site messages of the people in question that utilized the fake translations in order to get their upgrades and have decided to move on to a different wiki in order to push their agenda.

So which comment in the thread itself was "slandering" exactly? I don't think it's a baseless comment considering a SPECIFIC rule was made against it.

This guy literally supports the notion of me saying it's built upon the usage of "fake translations" IN THIS THREAD ITSELF
he's forced to spend days of his time, in order to clean the profiles up due to the fake / wrong translations in question.
CodeCCLL said:
I completely spend two days cleaning up content profiles based on unreliable translations, although, yet now he messing with me on my message wall.
Click to expand...

"My past behaviour" was me not taking opinions into consideration, due to them obviously not caring about mine. which seems to be a fair action to me atleast.

Reiner04 said:
I don't think this is just a case of friendly banter, but rather an intended mockery, a continuous and targeted at that (CodeCLL replied to his comment in the thread for which he went to his wall with intention to mock him). Considering his past offense was in July 2023, which was quite a while ago, I'm not sure if we should take that into account while deciding on the punishment for his current offense. However, I propose at least a one-month ban, others can adjust the ban length however they see fit.
Click to expand...
Please show me the "continuous and targeted mockery"
The only comment that can be considered as a "mockery"
Is the message i sent on his message wall

I said the verse would be reduced to nothing after everything that's wrong with it gets rightfully fixed, and you consider this as "report worthy" really?


Also by the way, my original first ban, i was unable to even defend myself.
I had staff from your wiki saying stuff like "HELLSCREAM SHUT THE F UP" and were deliberately trying to piss me off. but hey, you don't see me crying about that, i just took the ban and never cried about it.
 
Last edited:
Well, I agree about that your comments within the content revision thread itself were not actionable, and very likely based in truth, but your mocking message wall comment seemed deserving of a warning. 🙏
 
Hellscream said:
Please show me the "continuous and targeted mockery"
Click to expand...
v2Lmxyy.jpeg

This is after you were informed that the profiles are in good shape now and there's no need to delete them, While this message on its own is not report-worthy as I prevented things from getting out of hand by deleting any further related messages, you still went over to CodeCCLL’s wall to mock him further about Tensura’s current ratings, which is enough to take your actions in the thread into consideration.
 
Reiner04 said:
v2Lmxyy.jpeg

This is after you were informed that the profiles are in good shape now and there's no need to delete them, While this message on its own is not report-worthy as I prevented things from getting out of hand by deleting any further related messages, you still went over to CodeCCLL’s wall to mock him further about Tensura’s current ratings, which is enough to take your actions in the thread into consideration.
Click to expand...
I went to his message wall after reading his comment, which you deleted.
Which was him telling me not to comment.

In the first place where's the mockery in this?
This comment addressed his dismissal of my original comment by calling it "blatant slander"
I said the thread we were commenting on right there was made due to the "slander" in question where's the mockery?

In fact, would you mind posting the comment of @CodeCCLL that you deleted?

It's in good shape?
I don't think a good profile warrants daily downgrade threads.
 
Last edited:
Antvasima said:
Well, I agree about that your comments within the content revision thread itself were not actionable, and very likely based in truth, but your mocking message wall comment seemed deserving of a warning. 🙏
Click to expand...
This "mocking message" is also based on truth, as the verse is being hit with downgrade after downgrade with all of them being accepted, going from Low 1-C, to 2-B, to 2-C, and potentially Low 2-C.

I don't see how a comment that says "tensura will be reduced to atoms after it's fixed" is report worthy at all, nor do i see how it should even warrant a warning.
I made the comment after seeing what was happening to the verse.
 
Hellscream said:
I said the thread we were commenting on right there was made due to the "slander" in question where's the mockery?
Click to expand...
The thread in question wasn’t created due to any changes from mistranslation fixes, but rather because the existing justification goes against our Tier 2 multiplier standards.
Hellscream said:
I went to his message wall after reading his comment, which you deleted.
Which was him telling me not to comment.
Click to expand...
pIqJ1Rq.jpeg

CodeCLL is not wrong here. The origin of this thread, in particular, isn't based on a mistranslation, but rather on it being against our multiplier standards. Both are different things. He's just telling you to read before you comment.
 
"This is the thread including a fan translation mistake"

?????

My comment was thoughtful, and my comment wasn't wrong, so i have the right to comment.

Btw, I find this message of saying that my comments aren't thoughtful a mockery of my prior messages, so in my humble opinion it should warrant for a warning.
Also being told not to comment, and waving their comments away with pure dismissal of it not being "thoughtful" which basically implies im just typing random bs.

Which i also proved wrong earlier

Like if you want to report someone for every minor reason you'd have 1000000 pages here.
 
Hellscream said:
First of all, I stand with what I said in the thread itself, about the verse basically being built upon the usage of fake / wrong translations which is very apparent
Click to expand...
You are talking about fake scans and that is slander. Regarding the misleading translations, you say that the entire verse was built on this, even though all the misleading translations were removed, and this is also slander. If you're saying that this isn't a slander and that the official pages are still built on misleading translations and fake scans, then you have to prove it.

Also, the thread you commented on was completely irrelevant. It just mentioned a translation mistake on fan translation and that can happen in every verse (except for the english origins). And you started making hostile comments without even reading the thread.
Hellscream said:
he's forced to spend days of his time
Click to expand...
The problem is that you're talking like this even though this whole process has already been completed.
Hellscream said:
I don't think a good profile warrants daily downgrade threads.
Click to expand...
All the upgrades based on thread using misleading translations were removed and then a completely irrelevant thread was created and it hasn't even been accepted yet. There's no way you can call these daily downgrades, the verse may be in bad case but that doesn't mean you can make comments that make it seem worse than it is.
 
Whether something is slander is based in equal parts on whether it is true and what the intent of the thing said is, one feels. As a community we have been dealing with the mistranslations issue for some time now, and the blame of this does not fall to CodeCCLL. So even though the verse does suffer from mistranslations ("false translations" still falls in the territory of assumptions, I believe), that this derision is specifically targeted at a user with nothing to do with the issue, mocking them for trying to work on a verse, is definitely slander in my book.

I would also agree with the evaluation that Hellscream is antagonistic beyond this singular incident. Whether he feels justified in his actions isn't relevant.

In light of these musings, I will agree that a strict warning is enough for now, but I do think it's a more legitimate case than it initially seems.
 
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