Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[WHYNAUT]

Only cuz it got accepted. I didn't originally argue it, and Im pretty sure that WoG was used as a supportive to a feat. Staff has seen the scan and accepted it regardless too

"Infinite (Can casually lift up The Golden Staff, which is stated to have infinite weight)"

It's the primary feat. And it's still a rule violation, even if it went unnoticed by the staff members who were present at the time.

 

[Agnaa]

It may simply not have been sufficiently clear that you, a site user, had asked those questions. Now that we've had that information presented, and been able to analyze it as a group, we've found it to be a violation.

Admitting that you pestered the staff with leading questions, but with the justification being that most weren't used, isn't satisfactory by our offsite rules. Those rules are about asking them period, not about those asked questions seeing use.

And, as has been shown, some of them were used. Them originally being proposed in threads by different users, and being accepted by staff, is irrelevant.

We should not let users get away with pestering authors with misleading questions, simply because they only find their way onto site by another user including them in a CRT.

 

[Hypertornado099]

LloydBlitzed has used his own leading questions as evidence in a CRT here. He also continued pushing to use these statements despite being told it wasn't allowed

 

[Lloydblitzed]

It may simply not have been sufficiently clear that you, a site user, had asked those questions. Now that we've had that information presented, and been able to analyze it as a group, we've found it to be a violation.

Admitting that you pestered the staff with leading questions, but with the justification being that most weren't used, isn't satisfactory by our offsite rules.

Not what I said. I meant that most WoG questions used in the verse AREN'T from me nor are leading

Those rules are about asking them period, not about those asked questions seeing use.

Kindly, where has the writer shown to feel genually harassed or pestered about my questions tho?

Do not pester or harass the authors of various works on social media about versus debating or character statistics

And, as has been shown, some of them were used. Them originally being proposed in threads by different users, and being accepted by staff, is irrelevant.


We should not let users get away with pestering authors with misleading questions, simply because they only find their way onto site by another user including them in a CRT.

So how am I at fault for other users using my questions on site? Regarding Ninjago, Im pretty sure it was accepted in another thread that the writers used their Twitter and bluesky as means to do weekly Q&A about Ninjago, like the images below, which is also why some other questions were allowed to pass

LloydBlitzed has used his own leading questions as evidence in a CRT here. He also continued pushing to use these statements despite being told it wasn't allowed

Nice nitpicking. Garriaxan has approve the usage of these statements after the message you linked that they were Q&A stuff and allowable (see here and here). And btw, none of those were asked by me (in the Magic part especially)

 

[Agnaa]

Kindly, where has the writer shown to feel genually harassed or pestered about my questions tho?

We don't require that. We do this out of precaution.

So how am I at fault for other users using my questions on site?

Because you asked them.

Regarding Ninjago, Im pretty sure it was accepted in another thread that the writers used their Twitter and bluesky as means to do weekly Q&A about Ninjago, like the images below, which is also why some other questions were allowed to pass

Nice nitpicking. Garriaxan has approve the usage of these statements after the message you linked that they were Q&A stuff and allowable (see here and here).

1. At the time, Garrixian was only a content mod and translation helper, giving them no authority to judge that sort of thing.
2. We have no carveout for Q&As in our rules, and I would not agree with such a carveout being made.
3. You present this in a misleading way. The only example of a "Q&A event" you've provided is that one tweet from 2021; in the actual thread, you tried to frame it that way, but only substantively showed that the staff member interacts with fans (irrelevant) and that many questions were asked in sequence (this makes the case worse, really). Your Twitter account was made in 2023; two years after the "Q&A event" you're pointing to as a defence.

And btw, none of those were asked by me (in the Magic part especially)

Hyper's post linked this thread. Its very first link is this screenshot, which shows a staff member responding to a question asked by @lloydthegreenninja.bsky.social. The screenshot was taken 2 minutes after the reply was made.

Are you seriously denying that that's you?

---

I wasn't familiar with this case before, but after seeing the defences which merely fall flat, I strongly endorse a ban.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Hello all. This post is in regards to a private report our staff have evaluated recently regarding Ninjago, in particular with its CRTs and the usage of WoG. It has been proven to the satisfaction of the involved staff that @Lloydblitzed likely stands in violation of our offsite rules regarding contacting content creators with leading questions. As such, it has been determined that all WoG must be scrubbed from Ninjago, and whatever ratings and abilities are currently justified with it must be removed and replaced. Furthermore, it has been agreed for now that unless some form of defense is offered that sways the staff, a ban duration of two months has been suggested and approved.

For now, @Lloydblitzed, you are afforded time to come to your defense. We have identified these Bluesky and Twitter accounts as yours, and all evidence of leading questions is pulled from them.

This is news I wasn't expecting. But so be it, I had doubts about some proposals being thrown around here and there for Ninjago and Monkey Kid, but wasn't entirely sure how to put into words. Combined with there being some simple stuff that were fine, but bigger things were more doubtful.

Anyway, I agree with the comments made by Agnaa all things considered. We do not ask staff members some trick questions just to have a "Yeah, sure" type of response from authors and content creators.

 

[Lloydblitzed]

We don't require that. We do this out of precaution.

Im only going by the rule here. I should be at fault only if the writer feels harassed or pestered with my questions, or if my actions cause harm to anything or anyone here

Do not pester or harass the authors of various works on social media about versus debating or character statistics. They are often bombarded by numerous questions from fans, and thus are rarely interested in giving a serious response.In addition, the statements they give to appease users are often contradictory to the feats in the stories of the works they have written. Thus, it is frowned upon to bother them over these topics.

• Kindly post full-length links, not shortened ones (aka, ad-driven links). Posting shortened links will be interpreted as utilization of wiki traffic for personal gain, and result in a block.
• Off-site behavior is usually irrelevant except in cases of:
  • Actions that lead to the destabilization of the site (such as videos, forum posts, Discord chats, etc. that create drama), whether or not it was systematic. To determine what counts as destabilization of the site one should mostly look at the consequences of said act rather than the individual act itself.
  • Actions taken against another user off-site of such a nature that could reasonably cause undue harm and/or distress for the other user in on-site interactions. This includes, but is not limited to: harassment, threats of violence or similar harmful actions, unsolicited sexual misconduct, impersonation, hacking, and doxing.
  • Actions made off-site that could be reasonably construed as inconducive to the safety and/or wellbeing of a user, or a denomination of users, in on-site interactions. This includes, but is not limited to: threats directed towards particular demographics (i.e.: racial, gendered, sexual, and/or religiously motivated threats to commit violent acts), obscenities of an implicative nature (i.e.: rhetorical attacks on cultural groups, sexual comments towards minors), and involvement with known hate groups.
  • Engaging in online criminal activity (Not including piracy).

Because you asked them.

And? In what way does these question harassed or pestered the writer? Do you think I command these people and order them to use my questions on site?

1. At the time, Garrixian was only a content mod and translation helper, giving them no authority to judge that sort of thing.

The point is that Hyper was hiding context on what was said afterwards

1. We have no carveout for Q&As in our rules, and I would not agree with such a carveout being made.

2 other staff have agreed at that. Not only Garrixan. And Q&As were considered acceptable usage with other verse such as Marvel

1. You present this in a misleading way. The only example of a "Q&A event" you've provided is that one tweet from 2021; in the actual thread, you tried to frame it that way, but only substantively showed that the staff member interacts with fans (irrelevant) and that many questions were asked in sequence (this makes the case worse, really). Your Twitter account was made in 2023; two years after the "Q&A event" you're pointing to as a defence.

How exactly does that prove they don't answer Q&A questions anymore, or negate their statements, including those I sent here? Even in 2022, the older WoG quoted that he still does that. What the new writer said is also further back up by his recent tweet a few weeks ago, where he implies he likes to answer questions and interact with fans (which is what Q&As are by definition), and him even answering questions to provide information for wikis (the same guy who also stated numerous times that everything that the older writer said should be taken as true to the show)

Hyper's post linked this thread. Its very first link is this screenshot, which shows a staff member responding to a question asked by @lloydthegreenninja.bsky.social.

Everything else wasn't from me and was ignoring staff responses, which is why I said was nitpicking for the sake of banning me

The screenshot was taken 2 minutes after the reply was made.

I never denied it was my account, I wanted to say that not only most of them weren't asked by me, but that staff approve of this. I also find it ironic the guys who reported me arguably committed violations in my own threads and all of this suspicisouly happens right after I said I disagreed with Agnaa's hax standards. I think banning all the WoG statements for the verse is just too far, since most of them aren't even linked to me.

I'd also like to point out this rule exists, which are what the statements from me are used for

• Author statements will only be accepted when they clarify what has been shown or implied in the series itself, and will be rejected when they contradict what has been shown to the audience. Statements that technically do not contradict anything shown in the series will still be rejected if there is no evidence that they are accurate.

 

[Agnaa]

Im only going by the rule here. I should be at fault only if the writer feels harassed or pestered with my questions, or if my actions cause harm to anything or anyone here

And? In what way does these question harassed or pestered the writer? Do you think I command these people and order them to use my questions on site?

That's not the intent of that rule. How are we supposed to establish that a person being contacted "feels harassed or pestered" by you in particular? Such a standard would be asinine and nigh-impossible to meet. That's why the end of the paragraph you quoted says "Thus, it is frowned upon to bother them over these topics."

2 other staff have agreed at that. Not only Garrixan

No other staff commented on whether your justification made the asking of questions not against the rules.

How exactly does that prove they don't answer Q&A questions anymore

You initially claimed that questions were allowed to pass due to regular Q&A events. I argued that was wrong, and now you are saying "they answer Q&A questions sometime". That is a different claim; what you just did is a motte-and-bailey fallacy.

Even in 2022, the older WoG quoted that he still does that.

Okay, you've pushed the date of Q&A events to 2022.

What the new writer said is also further back up by his recent tweet a few weeks ago, where he implies he likes to answer questions and interact with fans, and him even answering questions to provide information for wikis

You initially claimed it was a regular Q&A event. I argued that was wrong, and now you are saying "they say they enjoy answering questions". This is even further removed from anything that would be relevant.

Everything else wasn't from me and was ignoring staff responses, which is why I said was nitpicking for the sake of banning me

Your initial claim was that none of them were asked by you. I demonstrated that was false, and now you've retreated, to saying it was only that one.

Well, looking at the other WoG in the thread (a difficult endeavour, since they were directly linked, without providing the screenshots and archive links we prefer to keep good record of these) I find this answer, where the original question post was deleted, yet I see a reply from you, seemingly continuing on to ask a different question.

Out of four linked bits of WoG, I could confirm that one was from you, could confirm that one wasn't from you, and the origin of the other two are unclear, but one of those does have you continuing to ask another question.

I don't find pointing out, at worst, a 1/4 rate to be "nitpicking for the sake of banning".

I also find it ironic the guys who reported me arguably committed violations in my own threads

Go ahead and report 'em, we receive and seriously consider reports even from banned members.

and all of this suspicisouly happens right after I said I disagreed with Agnaa's hax standards.

I have literally no idea what you're talking about. All I can think of is this thread but you weren't even in it. Plus I wasn't one of the staff members that initially reviewed/discussed this decision.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Im only going by the rule here. I should be at fault only if the writer feels harassed or pestered with my questions, or if my actions cause harm to anything or anyone here

Admittedly, our written rules do perhaps seem to be missing context. Of course, it is especially harassing them that violates our rules. Also, pestering is more so a tamer version of harassment as harassment refers to giving someone severe trouble or intimidation. Where as pestering is a synonym for bugging/bothering them or distracting them from more important duties or more personal life styles. And even if someone was genuinely polite to the author or if the author doesn't mind the question on a personal level, a psychological manipulation to basically get them to approve something that isn't really any of there business for the sake of massively highballing or lowballing a verse is against the rules as well. There's nothing wrong with asking simple questions to get simple responses; such as a character's official height and weight or the dimensions of an iconic ship or steed. But the first thing we need to realize before contacting authors is that they are not debaters/powerscalers themselves and probably dislike the battle boarding community altogether.

 

[Mr._Propeller_Hat]

I knew there was something fishy about this, when I was requested to evaluate this thread.

 

[Lloydblitzed]

That's not the intent of that rule. How are we supposed to establish that a person being contacted "feels harassed or pestered" by you in particular?

Then what's the point of saying off-site behavior aren't relevant unless they do harm? Does that mean anyone who asks authors a questions aren't allowed on site? Again, I find it a bit unfair to ban all WoG because of me when most of WoG statements aren't from me

Such a standard would be asinine and nigh-impossible to meet. That's why the end of the paragraph you quoted says "Thus, it is frowned upon to bother them over these topics."

No other staff commented on whether your justification made the asking of questions not against the rules.

You initially claimed that questions were allowed to pass due to regular Q&A events. I argued that was wrong, and now you are saying "they answer Q&A questions sometime".

I did not argue they "answer Q&A sometimes". I said they still do, and always do. And according to site rules, we allow supportive or clarifying WoG statements, which are what the ones I used on site were for

• Author statements will only be accepted when they clarify what has been shown or implied in the series itself, and will be rejected when they contradict what has been shown to the audience. Statements that technically do not contradict anything shown in the series will still be rejected if there is no evidence that they are accurate.

That is a different claim; what you just did is a motte-and-bailey fallacy.

Okay, you've pushed the date of Q&A events to 2022.

Read again what I said about the newer writer. Tommy is the older writer of Ninjago while otherland/Doc is the newer one, and he said everything answered before was canon. I think the author using a plateform mainly to answer questions from fans should be relevant

You initially claimed it was a regular Q&A event. I argued that was wrong, and now you are saying "they say they enjoy answering questions". This is even further removed from anything that would be relevant.

Actually, Q&A or not, the specific question u pointed out isn't leading at all

"Is Source Power stronger than Elemental Powers/Essences"
"Source Energy is the Source of Elemental Power"

(Zero relation to strength here and besides its stated in the show too)

I can prove the same for the other statements from me used in the wiki for justifications for Ninjago:

1. Zur speed amp: Legit used to confirm the validity of a statement from a secondary source guidebook (the other answer questions in the pic aren't used on site btw which is why I don't address them)
2. Grasslands being BDE: Asked the writer a question about higher plane for clarifying something said in the show (which was that Nether Space was more more permanent than the Departed Realm), with him answering that its due to people not returning from it cuz it was outside the Realm (yet again, the answer has 0 connection to "higher plane of existence" and is also supported in show, which is why I think it fits for "Author statements will only be accepted when they clarify what has been shown or implied in the series itself")

Every other WoG stuff used on site for Ninjago aren't from me

Your initial claim was that none of them were asked by you. I demonstrated that was false, and now you've retreated, to saying it was only that one.

I precised "especially the magic one"

Well, looking at the other WoG in the thread (a difficult endeavour, since they were directly linked, without providing the screenshots and archive links we prefer to keep good record of these) I find this answer, where the original question post was deleted, yet I see a reply from you, seemingly continuing on to ask a different question.

The deleted question isn't from me

Out of four linked bits of WoG, I could confirm that one was from you, could confirm that one wasn't from you, and the origin of the other two are unclear, but one of those does have you continuing to ask another question.

There genually not anything wrong done with my question here

I don't find pointing out, at worst, a 1/4 rate to be "nitpicking for the sake of banning".

The claim willingly ignored everything said after the message where the final staff decision was made. Yes, its nitpicking

Go ahead and report 'em, we receive and seriously consider reports even from banned members.

How am I supposed to contact staff while Im banned (if I do get banned) ?

I have literally no idea what you're talking about. All I can think of is this thread but you weren't even in it. Plus I wasn't one of the staff members that initially reviewed/discussed this decision.

Its due to me saying in a LMK thread that I wanted to make a staff thread cuz I disagreed with your hax reasoning, and the opposition "mysteriously" reports me 1 day later (not the first time for 1 of them), but ig its another story I won't extend too much on since its not on topic with my case

Admittedly, our written rules do perhaps seem to be missing context. Of course, it is especially harassing them that violates our rules. Also, pestering is more so a tamer version of harassment as harassment refers to giving someone severe trouble or intimidation. Where as pestering is a synonym for bugging/bothering them or distracting them from more important duties or more personal life styles. And even if someone was genuinely polite to the author or if the author doesn't mind the question on a personal level, a psychological manipulation to basically get them to approve something that isn't really any of there business for the sake of massively highballing or lowballing a verse is against the rules as well. There's nothing wrong with asking simple questions to get simple responses; such as a character's official height and weight or the dimensions of an iconic ship or steed. But the first thing we need to realize before contacting authors is that they are not debaters/powerscalers themselves and probably dislike the battle boarding community altogether.

Ah alright, I really dont think it's my fault tho that I percieved the rule differently since you mentioned it's missing context

 

[CloverDragon03]

Of course it's especially bad if the authors are actively being harassed, but to begin with, the rule's primary purpose is to prevent users from simply giving leading questions that result in them getting what they want in terms of upgrades for their characters. It's simply a dishonest way to go about things that doesn't properly represent the characters

 

[FinePoint]

I've been asked to comment on a lot of Ninjago revisions and Lloydblitzed has regularly been helpful, hard working, and passionately invested in the verse.

I in no way think his actions here were ever intended to violate any rules or be malicious.
In fact, I sympathize with the fact that the way the rule is written seems to imply that it's only a problem if vague criteria such as "pestering" or "harassing" are met, and I don't think either was his intention nor the result of the questions he asked.
And I'm also sure that he would be willing to help do the work to remove invalid WOG statements if needed.

Therefore, I do not support banning him for this and losing one of the verse's only passionate supporters over a misunderstanding.
I would much rather strongly warn him against doing it again, as well as clarify the rule to define the infraction better.

 

[FinePoint]

I've been informed via Discord that apparently Lloydblitzed has gotten in trouble in the past for manipulating votes.
I was not aware of this, and do not know if it is true.
Can anyone confirm?

 

[Lloydblitzed]

I've been informed via Discord that apparently Lloydblitzed has gotten in trouble in the past for manipulating votes.
I was not aware of this, and do not know if it is true.
Can anyone confirm?

Yes but this turned out to be a bad report/missunderstanding

 

[FinePoint]

Reporting @Lloydblitzed for intentionally misconstructing votes.

In this thread, you can see me reconfirming my stands that I have disagreed with IM 2. He proceeded to take it as a concession as I "agree with him" and put me in the agreement section... Making it look like I agree with everything but Info type 2, and completely leaving the disagreement section blank. (Just look at the vote tally)

To make things worse, IM 2 was the only thing I commented on. (proof here, here, here, and here)

You can find out more about it on my message wall, where I edited the grammar on my last comment (You can check that I am pretty sure)

I have found it.

It was indeed largely considered a misunderstanding, and they received no official punishment for it.
I do not think this changes my stance, but I do recognize that a pattern of "misunderstanding" can become concerning.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Acknowledging that FinePoint has voted in favor of forgiving Lloyd, and that I believe all defense has been heard, it is worth noting that the votes in favor of putting through the initially suggested ban of two months are overwhelmingly higher. FinePoint has offered the defense that in his opinion, Lloyd is hard working and consistent: I do not doubt this, Lloyd's work has been prolific. Nevertheless, rules have been broken, and this ban is fairly short- if Lloyd decides not to return following this, then losing him would have been his decision, not ours.

This decision is subject to further discussion and weighing-in from other staff, however I will be putting the ban through now, which may be adjusted later if a majority of those in favor of leniency appear.

On a related subject, I would like to hear from knowledgeable Ninjago users who may be willing to work on a CRT to remove WoG from the profiles. This discussion ought to take place off this thread- you're free to post on my message wall or directly message me regarding this.

 

[FinePoint]

Spoiler: Snip

Acknowledging that FinePoint has voted in favor of forgiving Lloyd, and that I believe all defense has been heard, it is worth noting that the votes in favor of putting through the initially suggested ban of two months are overwhelmingly higher. FinePoint has offered the defense that in his opinion, Lloyd is hard working and consistent: I do not doubt this, Lloyd's work has been prolific. Nevertheless, rules have been broken, and this ban is fairly short- if Lloyd decides not to return following this, then losing him would have been his decision, not ours.

This decision is subject to further discussion and weighing-in from other staff, however I will be putting the ban through now, which may be adjusted later if a majority of those in favor of leniency appear.

I think that is reasonable, though it leaves us with the question over whether or not the current rule might be confusing.

I already have two ongoing staff discussions to reword things so I'm hesitant to throw a third one up.

Also, Nierre "liked" my post about forgiving him, I'm not sure if that's them intending to officially side with me on that.
Though I doubt it changes the vote significantly.

 

[Wonder_of_Fantasy]

Apologies for the interruption. I would like to ask Staff since it seems appropriate;

What actions will be taken regarding Ninjago and MK profiles in light of this? Several abilities appear on those profiles that, based on the reasons discussed in this report, seem inappropriate or incorrect, at least to me.

 

[FinePoint]

Apologies for the interruption. I would like to ask Staff since it seems appropriate;

What actions will be taken regarding Ninjago and MK profiles in light of this? Several abilities appear on those profiles that, based on the reasons discussed in this report, seem inappropriate or incorrect, at least to me.

You may have missed it since Bambu edited it in after posting, but:

On a related subject, I would like to hear from knowledgeable Ninjago users who may be willing to work on a CRT to remove WoG from the profiles. This discussion ought to take place off this thread- you're free to post on my message wall or directly message me regarding this.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Apologies for the interruption. I would like to ask Staff since it seems appropriate;

What actions will be taken regarding Ninjago and MK profiles in light of this? Several abilities appear on those profiles that, based on the reasons discussed in this report, seem inappropriate or incorrect, at least to me.

A thread will need to be made to remove WoG from these profiles. Any ability that was accepted in a CRT based on the use of supporting WoG is now in question and cannot reasonably be kept. It would fall to a knowledgeable member of the verse, or at least someone generally familiar with the verse, to lead such an effort, as it would involve presenting potentially new statistics and so on.

As I said in my last post, I am interested in hearing from supporters regarding leading this small project, but it should not be discussed here, I think. I had not considered Lego Monkie Kid but it would likely need to be mirrored for that verse as well.

 

[FinePoint]

I made the staff thread regarding the wording of the rule, and how it seemingly is different from how we enforce it.

 

[Dark_Soul20189]

As such, it has been determined that all WoG must be scrubbed from Ninjago, and whatever ratings and abilities are currently justified with it must be removed and replaced.

Regarding Lloyd's ban, I decided to take a look at their Cosmology page, and it much worse than I dared to think....

Here are all the ones I found from this page alone (Basically half the page scans)

Overview of the realm section

Overview of the Realms​

The Realms are all transcended and supported by the Balance between Light and Dark, if one realm falls, its sister realm will fall as well.

Time passes differently in other Realms, and there are different rules and different physics in other realms.

It was also confirmed by Tommy Andreason, Co-Creator of Ninjago, that outer space is not separate from the Realms, but rather a part of it. He also confirmed that Realms are not simply planets, as some of the older Ninjago lore refers to "Ninjago" as the island, not the realm (Ninjago Island is on Earth, while Earth is located within the Ninjago Realm).

Half of the "Overview of realms, are leading questions


The 17 Realms section

The 17 Realms​

There are 17 Realms in total. Ninjago is the "prime" realm/universe, and ALL of the other 16 realms are all parallel to it.

places

only be reached by becoming cursed.

Departed Realm: The Departed Realm is where the souls of beings from all known realms, including the Cursed Realm, Ninjago and Underworld, go to after they die. It is one of three "afterlife" realms. It is the only confirmed realm which the Realm Crystal cannot open a portal to get to.

It is also one of the 16 realms parallel to Ninjago.

confirmed by Doc Wyatt .

Yeah, lots of more Leading questions and other Twitter statements

The Balance (Low 1C)

They also represent both sides of the balance.

Each of them exists in his own realm/dimension located outside of multiverse, and these are also places where their truest selves remain dormant. For the First Spinjitzu Master, it is the Grasslands, while the Overlord has his void.

Not much WoG and Leading questions compared to the others

Realms Beyond

• The Nether-Space was implied to have a flow of time similar to the one of the Merged Realms, and the Grasslands were implied by WoG to have the same nature at the Nether-Space.

• The Grasslands were stated to be located outside the realms, completely separate from the Merged Realms and unaffected by the Merge.

The Nether-Space was implied to have its own time axis,

• WOG stated the Overlord's void is meant to be a dark version of the Grasslands.

even though they previously had different flows of time,

Yeah, almost all of these are leading questions or WoG...


Explanation/Rules

as well as different rule of time.

Even this part has it...

So yeah, almost the entirety of the cosmology blog is WoG and Leading questions, and I only looked for these, and ignored the other problems this had.

 

[TheOrangeGuy09]

Huh, are author statements unusable as a whole? I thought only malicious baiting questions are. After skimming, most of the scans are not leading, mostly lore clarifications and genuine questions about the series or/and made all the way back in 2016.

Also, I doubt we should talk about this here anyways.

 

[Dark_Soul20189]

Huh, are author statements unusable as a whole? I thought only malicious baiting questions are. After skimming, many scans are either nor leading, mostly lore clarification or genuine question about the series or/and made all the way back in 2016.

Normally, Author statements can be used, as long as they are not contradicting or from a leading question. Ninjago was specifically requested to have all WoG removed for reasons above.

Also, I doubt we should talk about this here anyways.

We really shouldn't, but it was specifically requested by Bambu to have them removed, so I think it's alright to share it here in this case, also due to its relevance to Lloyd's ban too, since some of these were from his questions.

 

[Wonder_of_Fantasy]

Some form of content revision thread should be made on the topic.

 

[FinePoint]

Friends, please do not argue this here.

Make a new thread about the topic.

This is for rule violation reports.

 

[Ultimate-Rex1]

Friends, please do not argue this here.

Make a new thread about the topic.

This is for rule violation reports.

Will, OK. Before this, can't we leave this to the Knowledgeable Members of Ninjago, as they correct mistakes and replace it, as they have enough information about the whole show

 

[Dark_Soul20189]

My apologies, but I do not understand what you're saying here.

He is asking that he and the more knowledgeable members will be given some time so they can identify and replace the WoG scans with scans in-verse. Instead of just deleting them outright.

 

[Ultimate-Rex1]

My apologies, but I do not understand what you're saying here.

Sorry. I meant Knowledgeable Members of Ninjago have enough information about show, so we can leave everything to them, for remove it and correct it

 

[FinePoint]

He is asking that he and the more knowledgeable members will be given some time so they can identify and replace the WoG scans with scans in-verse. Instead of just deleting them outright.

Sorry. The original comment was full of typos which confused me. He fixed them soon after but I had already started replying before that.

Indeed we will rely on knowledgeable members of Ninjago to handle the revisions, although we will obviously look them over to approve them.

A thread will need to be made to remove WoG from these profiles. Any ability that was accepted in a CRT based on the use of supporting WoG is now in question and cannot reasonably be kept. It would fall to a knowledgeable member of the verse, or at least someone generally familiar with the verse, to lead such an effort, as it would involve presenting potentially new statistics and so on.

As I said in my last post, I am interested in hearing from supporters regarding leading this small project, but it should not be discussed here, I think. I had not considered Lego Monkie Kid but it would likely need to be mirrored for that verse as well.

Any further discussion related to Ninjago can be taken to a new thread or one of our message walls at least.

 

[Agnaa]

How am I supposed to contact staff while Im banned (if I do get banned) ?

You can contact them off-site through means such as Discord.

You can also contact them on the wiki by commenting on their message wall on community central.

 

[Reiner04]

You can contact them off-site through means such as Discord.

You can also contact them on the wiki by commenting on their message wall on community central.

He's already banned so I don't think he will be able to see your post.

 

[Agnaa]

This thread's visible to people who aren't logged in.

 

[Antvasima]

This thread's visible to people who aren't logged in.

Yes, but people whose accounts have been banned or rejected cannot see it as far as I am aware, and XenForo also does not allow them to log out for a very long time as an automatic security measure that individual forums cannot do anything about.

 

[Wonder_of_Fantasy]

Doing this out of concern and apparent escalation from MK supporters here.

Here is the thread in question, which is undergoing grace.

Users Involved:

• @Johner2133451
• @Arency

In the linked thread, both Johner and Arency have been engaging in behavior that, to me, appears to be deliberately disruptive. Specifically:

1. Purposefully trying to force the thread to close before the standard grace period is over.
2. Baiting other users into reactive responses that they can then challenge or escalate — this has happened multiple times.
3. Attempting to circumvent votes and the match-up result by strawmanning and baiting others, as evidenced in the thread.

This behavior is causing unnecessary tension and derailing the discussion, which I believe violates the forum's standards for respectful and constructive debate. I also believe the conduct is poor enough that a staff member could consider monitoring the thread, regardless of its outcome.

I would like to believe that what is occurring is a mere misunderstanding, but I feel things are getting heated with the constant short back-and-forth going on in the thread.

 

[Johner2133451]

Doing this out of concern and apparent escalation from MK supporters here.

Here is the thread in question, which is undergoing grace.

Users Involved:

• @Johner2133451
• @Arency

In the linked thread, both Johner and Arency have been engaging in behavior that, to me, appears to be deliberately disruptive. Specifically:

1. Purposefully trying to force the thread to close before the standard grace period is over.
2. Baiting other users into reactive responses that they can then challenge or escalate — this has happened multiple times.
3. Attempting to circumvent votes and the match-up result by strawmanning and baiting others, as evidenced in the thread.

This behavior is causing unnecessary tension and derailing the discussion, which I believe violates the forum's standards for respectful and constructive debate. I also believe the conduct is poor enough that a staff member could consider monitoring the thread, regardless of its outcome.

I would like to believe that what is occurring is a mere misunderstanding, but I feel things are getting heated with the constant short back-and-forth going on in the thread.

I don't think anyone in the thread was heated tho? I was just responding to @Ruler_Star_Kuma who is a touhou supporter who mentions Yukari's profile is very outdated like her weaknesses

Also I'm not a MK supporter as I don't watch the show

 

[Ruler_Star_Kuma]

Yeah I'd say I'm good

 

[Arency]

Doing this out of concern and apparent escalation from MK supporters here.

Here is the thread in question, which is undergoing grace.

Users Involved:

• @Johner2133451
• @Arency

In the linked thread, both Johner and Arency have been engaging in behavior that, to me, appears to be deliberately disruptive. Specifically:

1. Purposefully trying to force the thread to close before the standard grace period is over.
2. Baiting other users into reactive responses that they can then challenge or escalate — this has happened multiple times.
3. Attempting to circumvent votes and the match-up result by strawmanning and baiting others, as evidenced in the thread.

This behavior is causing unnecessary tension and derailing the discussion, which I believe violates the forum's standards for respectful and constructive debate. I also believe the conduct is poor enough that a staff member could consider monitoring the thread, regardless of its outcome.

I would like to believe that what is occurring is a mere misunderstanding, but I feel things are getting heated with the constant short back-and-forth going on in the thread.

Ehh when I was baiting? Also I never caused derailing and forcing the thread to be closed...

 

[TWILIGHT-OP]

Yes, but people whose accounts have been banned or rejected cannot see it as far as I am aware, and XenForo also does not allow them to log out for a very long time as an automatic security measure that individual forums cannot do anything about.

clearing browsing data from chrome or similar, automatically logs out.
from my experience