Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Hellscream]

This is definitely going to be a bit of a petty report, but still necessary.

Reporting @Hellscream for this comment in the thread. This shows he is not arguing based on actual facts or their profiles, but rather out of bad faith and disdain.

It should also be noted that he has shown extreme dislike for the verse in the past and was reported for it.

Also, look at CodeCCLL message wall (13 April 2025)

Not to mention how these actions are consistent, as I proved in an earlier post.


So yeah, to conclude, his last punishment seems to have accomplished nothing, and he still acts the same.

Honestly, there should be sanctions for people that are reporting, just for the sake of reporting

"This shows he is not arguing based on actual facts or their profiles, but rather out of bad faith and disdain."

I joined the thread, to address misconceptions about Yhwach such as him not having "AE1", quoted the relevant parts and then backed down from the thread for personal reasons that i quoted. Could i have stated it differently sure? But im entitled to my opinion right?

You seem quite upset, with my opinion however.
(Probably not) You're just looking for every possible reason to report me lol.

 

[Dark_Soul20189]

Honestly, there should be sanctions for people that are reporting, just for the sake of reporting

I would not have filed a report if you didn't have a history.

"This shows he is not arguing based on actual facts or their profiles, but rather out of bad faith and disdain."

I joined the thread, to address misconceptions about Yhwach such as him not having "AE1", quoted the relevant parts and then backed down from the thread for personal reasons that i quoted. Could i have stated it differently sure? But im entitled to my opinion right?

Ah, yes, that was definitely what I reported.

Also, i have no interest in this matchup on VSBW as rimuru is horribly wanked here lol

You seem quite upset, with my opinion however.
(Probably not) You're just looking for every possible reason to report me lol.

You could not make it clearer that you don't care what happened, nor your attitude.

Reminds me of how you reacted to your last official report.

Wild stuff ngl, im honestly flabbergasted

His message wall (13 April 2025)

To summarise, @Hellscream has a history with tensura, has a history of being antagonistic, and a history of showing no remorse, and after being warned, nothing improved.

I won't reply to further comments from here, don't wanna clog the thread.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

The comment was ever so slightly antagonistic. Given the message wall, while I don't think we need to issue a full-on warning, I will state that you, @Hellscream, shouldn't be picking fights in VS threads. 's no need for it, even if it is a relatively petty jab. Play nice.

 

[Catzlaflame]

Same opinion. Although, I want to clarify something since I see people using the phrase "Arguing in bad faith" a lot more than usual nowadays.

To give an example, If there was a character which I believed was at X level of strength and/or had X ability. If I knowingly choose to ignore my actual belief, and argue against something that I do actually believe in, purely for the sake of another cause unrelated to strength (disliking the verse, etc). That is what I've always considered to be "arguing in bad faith." Like if I say "Yeah I totally agree that Naruto is 1-A, but I hate this series so much, I want to argue against everything the supporters say in favor of 1-A."

But If someone thinks a verse has an inaccurate rating ("wanked" or "underrated" for ex), it's an opinion/position that I think is an acceptable reason to argue in favor/against something, and isn't arguing "in bad fath." Maybe not in the manner which he did so, but its hardly crossing a boundary imo.

 

[Antvasima]

I think finepoint’s concerns are valid; I’d like to think I have a fairly liberal take on this sorta thing, but something as explicit as all of the above (particularly the deleted one cus lmao) are honestly not cool. A strong warning does seem appropriate.

Okay. Is somebody else willing to give Giannysmag an appropriately worded very strict warning, and update our warning tracker accordingly, please?

It’s 5-3 — with Agnaa being “not sure” ?
REPEAL: Bambu, Finepoint, Ant
NO REPEAL: DDM, Damage, Reiner, Propellus, Catz

Okay. That is unfortunate.

@Firestorm808 requested further information, so feel free to consider the latter portion of Bambu’s message and this summary.

Thank you. I have unblocked MeiouHades in our wiki and forum now.

 

[StrymULTRA]

Okay. That is unfortunate.

I shouldn't talk in but I'd remind you that Charmander shouldn't make another appeal attempt after this one, as he'll continue again and again and again with requests with staff always saying no.

I do think, Ant, that whatever the outcome here, this should be the last ban appeal. Most people have made clear that they are unwilling to extend leniency to Charmander, given the extreme amount of sockpuppeting he's done down the years.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, the rejection was not unanimous, and I really do think that it seems exaggerated to keep punishing Charmander forever.

 

[Damage3245]

Well, the rejection was not unanimous, and I really do think that it seems exaggerated to keep punishing Charmander forever.

Isn't the point of a "permanent ban" so that the punished individual is punished forever? It's why it is such a severe punishment.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, but the views seem to be split regarding if it is warranted for us to maintain it in this particular case.

 

[Crabwhale]

I see no reason to lift the ban considering his last sock was popped semi-recently. Doubt the dude has changed to a significant enough degree to be allowed back in.

 

[Wankbreaker]

What do we do, in the case where a user behind a verse deletion request, admits their primary goal was to stifle dissent/downgrade attempts?

 

[Agnaa]

Report them. It may have been a good idea to report them privately, but doing so here works I guess.

While that may lead to some consideration towards bringing the deleted verse back, due to the deletion having originated from a large thread accepted by many staff, this would be merely a minor point relating to that.

 

[Wankbreaker]

What do we do, in the case where a user behind a verse deletion request, admits their primary goal was to stifle dissent/downgrade attempts?

if it wasnt made clear, the user is @CRIMPSUMPSKI2 .

 

[Agnaa]

I'm not sure how seriously to treat this. If @CRIMPSUMPSKI2 can't explain it away, then I'd probably be willing to go with anything from a warning to a 2 month ban, given how it's a first offence.

 

[Wankbreaker]

I'm not sure how seriously to treat this. If @CRIMPSUMPSKI2 can't explain it away, then I'd probably be willing to go with anything from a warning to a 2 month ban, given how it's a first offence.

frankly, im just dissapointed.

I thought the deletion was out of an actual desire to help out the verse, not a veiled attempt to block me or other dissenters out,which is why I decided to tag along for their efforts.

I think not only the motivations should be considered, but the act of trying to lie and mask it as well.

 

[CRIMPSUMPSKI2]

I'm not sure how seriously to treat this. If @CRIMPSUMPSKI2 can't explain it away, then I'd probably be willing to go with anything from a warning to a 2 month ban, given how it's a first offence.

Bro it's like 3 AM but long story short is it's not about downgrading (idk why she keeps trying to frame my motives like this, she did this in a gc earlier too), it was about the fact that she'd constantly be trying to make moves like the thread earlier without even consulting the rest of the group (didn't see one word about it in either the gc or server before she posted it), and was about to do this with a cosmology thread not long ago (she was demoted from mod after that happened and later got her role back). From what I recall, even before Mage's was created she similarly was making threads almost unannounced even after I told her about plans to revamp the verse.

Both I and the rest of the group (including @ShinMaximillion) tried talking to her multiple times about the same thing throughout today and just before she left the server, and she wasn't cooperating very well at all. Like I said in the server, I tried giving her multiple chances after similar slip ups but she's been somewhat of a nightmare to work with over these past few months. In fact, Sariel (one of the other co-owners) was talking with her in dms LITERALLY JUST AS she made this report.

If possible I'd rather address the rest of this in a GC or something some time tomorrow.

 

[Agnaa]

I don't think that really helps to explain the messages, but you can start a GC to talk about it tomorrow, sure.

I'll be pretty busy 24-96 hours from now so you may want to include other staff.

 

[Wankbreaker]

Bro it's like 3 AM but long story short is it's not about downgrading (idk why she keeps trying to frame my motives like this, she did this in a gc earlier too),

You literally said one of the big reasons for deleting the verse, was so people like me don’t pop up and make downgrade threads.

 

[CRIMPSUMPSKI2]

You literally said one of the big reasons for deleting the verse, was so people like me don’t pop up and make downgrade threads.

Them being upgrade or downgrade threads isn't relevant, what I'm talking about is making threads (especially verse-wide standards) while we already had a schedule everyone agreed to and taking time away from everyone involved. Go back and read just about anything I said when the thread was made and I've been consistent about this from the start.

 

[CloverDragon03]

You literally said one of the big reasons for deleting the verse, was so people like me don’t pop up and make downgrade threads.

Don't twist it in such a way so as to make you look better, it's not at all in good faith. Downgrades were not at all mentioned, it was because you kept making these things without consulting anyone

 

[Agnaa]

Them being upgrade or downgrade threads isn't relevant, what I'm talking about is making threads (especially verse-wide standards) while we already had a schedule everyone agreed to and taking time away from everyone involved. Go back and read just about anything I said when the thread was made and I've been consistent about this from the start.

Don't twist it in such a way so as to make you look better, it's not at all in good faith. Downgrades were not at all mentioned, it was because you kept making these things without consulting anyone

From the way it was said, with "she literally showed up out of nowhere just to downgrade Shiki" and "the threat of more people like her showing up", makes it sound like it was about downgrades.

But there could be exculpatory context.

 

[CRIMPSUMPSKI2]

From the way it was said, with "she literally showed up out of nowhere just to downgrade Shiki" and "the threat of more people like her showing up", makes it sound like it was about downgrades.

But there could be exculpatory context.

Yeah the context behind this was that there was an entire GC with her, some other members, and me (though I wasn't very involved) that was dedicated to downgrading Shiki, and it was how FATE joined the site. I've made it clear that my position on the topic is neutral until further notice in the past.

 

[Agnaa]

@KnightOfSunlight While I understand your post, I think it's best to delete it since it kinda serves as an unnecessary distraction.

Either way, we're going to give this thing the time for us to dig into the context properly. Attacking Wankbreaker's character is unnecessary, since we won't simply take her at her word, and just bogs things down by begging Wankbreaker to defend herself.

 

[KnightOfSunlight]

@KnightOfSunlight While I understand your post, I think it's best to delete it since it kinda serves as an unnecessary distraction.

Either way, we're going to give this thing the time for us to dig into the context properly. Attacking Wankbreaker's character is unnecessary, since we won't simply take her at her word, and just bogs things down by begging Wankbreaker to defend herself.

I protest this very strongly.

Establishment of character is important when the argument is based on motive. Otherwise, CRIMPSUMPSKI2 needs to answer for nothing as their personal reasons for pushing a verse deletion are irrelevant, and Wankbreaker should have her report deleted the same as my character establishing post was.

The thread almost universally agreed with deletion of the Nasuverse, not to avoid downgrades, but because the verse was in complete disrepair.

I won't bury the lead here, I don't believe CRIMPSUMPSKI2 deleted the verse to avoid downgrades. But if my establishment of Wankbreaker's character is not necessary, then this report is bogus in the first place.

 

[Theglassman12]

Seeing Wankbreaker’s recent incident with the Nasu downgrades and how they twisted a poll out of context, I don’t see why I should take their report as serious. For all we know this is also something that’s taken out of context in discord.

 

[Agnaa]

I protest this very strongly.

Establishment of character is important when the argument is based on motive. Otherwise, CRIMPSUMPSKI2 needs to answer for nothing as their personal reasons for pushing a verse deletion are irrelevant, and Wankbreaker should have her report deleted the same as my character establishing post was.

The thread almost universally agreed with deletion of the Nasuverse, not to avoid downgrades, but because the verse was in complete disrepair.

I won't bury the lead here, I don't believe CRIMPSUMPSKI2 deleted the verse to avoid downgrades. But if my establishment of Wankbreaker's character is not necessary, then this report is bogus in the first place.

I disagree with your framing very strongly.

Neglecting to include sufficient context for a point is different from stretching other reasons to delete a verse, while the true reason is wanting to avoid downgrades.

If you think Wankbreaker neglecting to include sufficient context in that case was a rule violation, you're free to report that as its own thing. But your post was using that to defend the allegation against CRIM, which is not a suitable usage of that.

Like, you're saying that I should delete a report of a user's behaviour, because I deleted your irrelevant defense of a user's behaviour. Those are not the same things, even if you can weave a narrative about them both being rooted in "character". The RVR isn't a place where posts about "character" are automatically either allowed, or disallowed. Other factors determine whether they should stay.

Seeing Wankbreaker’s recent incident with the Nasu downgrades and how they twisted a poll out of context, I don’t see why I should take their report as serious. For all we know this is also something that’s taken out of context in discord.

Outside of very strong cases, I don't think we should dismiss reports based on who is reporting them.

What do we lose by spending a few days waiting for CRIM's response, evaluating the context, and acting accordingly?

---

@Junkoposter In line with the OP:

Regular members aren't allowed to post in this Rule Violation Reports thread, unless they are making a report here, have direct involvement in a report, or have relevant information about a report that has not been brought up yet, in order to not derail or delay the processing of the reports, or worse instigate further rule violations. Repeated violations will be followed with a strict warning, followed by a threadban for one week to a site ban for some duration, depending on the severity of their conduct.

 

[Theglassman12]

Given the very recent thread that has numerous Nasu fans calling him out for taking a discord poll out of context to justify a downgrade thread when the verse hasn't even come back to the wiki alongside some other tactics they've pulled in the same server, forgive me if I don't find this report to be legitimate. If CRIM still wants to clarify some things then fine, but I've already said my case on the situation.

 

[KnightOfSunlight]

I disagree with your framing very strongly.

Neglecting to include sufficient context for a point is different from stretching other reasons to delete a verse, while the true reason is wanting to avoid downgrades.

If you think Wankbreaker neglecting to include sufficient context in that case was a rule violation, you're free to report that as its own thing. But your post was using that to defend the allegation against CRIM, which is not a suitable usage of that.

Like, you're saying that I should delete a report of a user's behaviour, because I deleted your irrelevant defense of another user's behaviour. Those are not the same things, even if you can weave a narrative about them both being rooted in "character". The RVR isn't a place where posts about "character" are automatically either allowed, or disallowed. Other factors determine whether they should stay.

You are deliberately misinterpreting my point here.

My point is that, if Wankbreaker's trend of taking things out of context to support her argument is not relevant because "Attacking Wankbreaker's character is unnecessary" then this entire report itself is bogus.

This report itself is an attack on CRIMPSUMPSKI2's character. Framing it as anything else is dishonest or even downright deceptive. Furthermore, it ignores the actual reality of the situation.

The thread in question that deleted the Nasuverse never once made any attempt to argue that it was to avoid downgrades. It showcased and stated that the verse was in complete disrepair (which it was) and then proposed, not forced, a deletion so that people could revamp it. That is what multiple admins agreed upon. That is why the verse was deleted; people agreed with the proposal. What you suggest is meaningless; CRIMPSUMPSKI2 has none of the power necessary to delete a verse to avoid downgrades, he isn't an admin.

Or, if we can suddenly attack reasoning, then we can equally attack everyone on the site that has ever posted a revision for being biased.

 

[Agnaa]

You are deliberately misinterpreting my point here.

I think you're misunderstanding my point.

My point is that, if Wankbreaker's trend of taking things out of context to support her argument is not relevant because "Attacking Wankbreaker's character is unnecessary" then this entire report itself is bogus.

This report itself is an attack on CRIMPSUMPSKI2's character. Framing it as anything else is dishonest or even downright deceptive. Furthermore, it ignores the actual reality of the situation.

From the start, I said it was unnecessary in terms of defending this report against CRIM.

@KnightOfSunlight While I understand your post, I think it's best to delete it since it kinda serves as an unnecessary distraction.

Either way, we're going to give this thing the time for us to dig into the context properly. Attacking Wankbreaker's character is unnecessary, since we won't simply take her at her word, and just bogs things down by begging Wankbreaker to defend herself.

And as of my last post, I said that you are indeed allowed to make a report against Wankbreaker on those grounds. It would just be evaluated as its own thing, not used as a part of the defence of CRIM.

If you think Wankbreaker neglecting to include sufficient context in that case was a rule violation, you're free to report that as its own thing. But your post was using that to defend the allegation against CRIM, which is not a suitable usage of that.

I am not saying "Attacking CRIM is fine, but attacking Wankbreaker is bad!" I'm saying "Attacking Wankbreaker isn't a valid defence of CRIM. If you think Wankbreaker did something bad, report her, and we'll handle that separately."

What you suggest is meaningless; CRIMPSUMPSKI2 has none of the power necessary to delete a verse to avoid downgrades, he isn't an admin.

Maybe I didn't indicate this strongly enough earlier, but I was torn between this, even if true, barely being an offence, or being a relatively minor offence:

I'm not sure how seriously to treat this. If @CRIMPSUMPSKI2 can't explain it away, then I'd probably be willing to go with anything from a warning to a 2 month ban, given how it's a first offence.

Of course I don't think CRIM has the power to delete a verse to avoid downgrades. I treated a similar offence much more seriously when it was presented about an actual staff member who did go through with such a deletion without sufficient support.

 

[FinePoint]

Personally, I think it is a waste of our time to question the motive behind one random person part of a deletion that was largely supported by the community for various other reasons anyway.

 

[KnightOfSunlight]

Maybe I didn't indicate this strongly enough earlier, but I was torn between this, even if true, barely being an offence, or being a relatively minor offence:

I can give you your answer and end all of this right now: even if what Wankbreaker posted is entirely truthful and not taken out of context (as I was trying to establish with my first post: highly unlikely), this isn't a report-worthy thing.

She's trying to report someone for having an opinion, basically. I don't think I need to tell you how ridiculous that is.

 

[FinePoint]

CodeCCLL

vsbattles.fandom.com

I did mention he got a little heated another time in addition, though since it doesn't actually contain a direct insult I don't really consider it a pattern of being rude. A pattern of getting emotional, I suppose.

I would still support an informal warning, though I don't believe we've heard from other staff yet, and I'd like to.

 

[FinePoint]

Okay. Is somebody else willing to give Giannysmag an appropriately worded very strict warning, and update our warning tracker accordingly, please?

Apparently they were also banned before for vandalism, and had a similar attitude back then of treating it like a joke.

I'm not sure if this changes anything.

 

[ShinMaximillion]

I just saw everything, and in my view of Crim's defence and his own, he wanted to fix Nasuverse profiles in a GC we all shared with Wankbreaker, which they probably saw the messages to, I dunno. My thing is proving Crim's innocence and the dates more or less state everything relevant here; this was before Wankbreaker even begun her debunking spree on Fate EXTRA and other iterations; so Crim's thing is still genuine and not made purely out of spite on Wankbreaker's downgrading attempts or whatsoever; I don't know why was it even brought up.

Here, Crim stated this back in October of last year.

Right in front of F.a.t.e/Wankbreaker, Crim stated this and discussed about the deletion of the verse back in August.

Heck, Wankbreaker herself agreed to Crim's proposal back in August.
So I don't know where the suddenness of this "Crim deleted the profiles to blatantly stop me from downgrading the verse" came from.
I can post similar statements by Crim from way before the downgrades spree or whatever occurred, but I think we all get the point here.

 

[MeiouHades]

I just wanted to say that I'm extremely grateful to the staff for giving me another chance, I can assure them that they won't regret the decision. I've been continuously improving myself as a person by working on myself and going to therapy for various reasons, that has proven to be fruitful both offline and online. I'll strive to adhere to the rules this time.

 

[Antvasima]

Apparently they were also banned before for vandalism, and had a similar attitude back then of treating it like a joke.

I'm not sure if this changes anything.

Well, I am more open for giving Giannysmag a temporary ban then. What do other staff members here think that we should do regarding this case?

 

[Antvasima]

I just wanted to say that I'm extremely grateful to the staff for giving me another chance, I can assure them that they won't regret the decision. I've been continuously improving myself as a person by working on myself and going to therapy for various reasons, that has proven to be fruitful both offline and online. I'll strive to adhere to the rules this time.

Thank you. That is good to hear.

 

[PedjaTarzan]

Well, I am more open for giving Giannysmag a temporary ban then. What do other staff members here think that we should do regarding this case?

Why would you give a ban if he already has done out his punishment before, this just seems weird since his vandalism is done for a completely different reason compared to writing sex jokes which in 90% do not insult anyone nor are that disturbing and banning him again for something he already got banned to "support" the given report makes no sense.

 

[TWILIGHT-OP]

Well, I am more open for giving Giannysmag a temporary ban then. What do other staff members here think that we should do regarding this case?

It's true that his behavior around making sex jokes needs to change. However, afaik, the previous ban was actually due to him vandalizing profiles as a joke, not for the sex jokes themselves. That said, if other staff members believe a temporary ban is necessary, I’d support a duration of 2 weeks to 1 month with a strict warning (Tho I don't really support a ban just in case if anyone believes to give him a temporary ban). Since, @Giannysmag mentioned, the jokes were directed at close friends who didn’t seem to mind.

 

[Giannysmag]

I don't see what the previous ban has to do with the current issue. That was a troll edit I did due to some beef I had with another user, which I haven't repeated since. It's completely unrelated to me making immature jokes with friends