• 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)

Mr. Bambu said:
I will repeat that I read the thread. You referred to him as a "bum ass". You aggressed repeatedly. Your faults are not equal. I did acknowledge Foriaa's own actions, but they are lesser compared to your own.

We have four staff who have approved of a warning at this point, I am going to apply it. Play nice or don't play. We can move on, now.
Click to expand...
Good, let's wrap this up.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
Read through it. Soulking instigated and behaved the worst of them, but once Foriaa became aware that he was dissing as a Bleach supporter, both were playing the back-and-forth. I'm acknowledging this as a mitigating factor, I don't think Foriaa's actions were even bad enough to warrant a formal rebuke, just a "please don't bother doing that in the future".

I would agree with a formal warning to Soulking. Going to a CRT for a verse you very obviously oppose and consider yourself a rival of can be done, but rules and basic respect still must be witnessed and adhered to. This was just picking a fight.
Click to expand...

This guy literally generalized the bleach community "no wonder a buncha y'all are in my thread", due to "bleach nerfs" he's describing the bleach fanbase to be petty towards naruto, when the thread itself is questionable.

And continued to ragebait "Haha, the latest bleach nerfs must've hurt, I was wondering why there was a buncha yall in here, and I noticed my thread was sent in your general discussion thread."

"Yea, I'm laughing mad hard right now knowing Yhwach, your supposed God Tier contends with a buncha random Mid tiers from Shippuden in speed 😂✌️"

It was literally a back and forth between two users, so im not entirely sure why you're being nitpicky and are only warning a single user.

"Bum ass logic" or "Ridiculous logic", which is questioning the thread itself, or involving the bleach fanbase, and ragebaiting the bleach community in general.
 
M3X_2.0 said:
-snip-
Click to expand...
Nevermind the fact that Charmander made two sockpuppets mid-ban-appeal to be active on the wiki and no one noticed up until very late. We permaban people for less.

This is not a man who wants to change. This is a man who wants to act like he has the moral high ground and wants to mock the people on this wiki just because the stats on this website don't fit his narrative. We have no need for that kind of behavior here. Not now, not ever.

The fact that he was unbanned in the first place after everything that's happened is already absurd, trying to grant leniency for this kind of behavior because of some false assumption of "we can't know if they actually improve during their ban" after repeated showings of no change is even worse.
 
KLOL506 said:
Nevermind the fact that Charmander made two sockpuppets mid-ban-appeal to be active on the wiki and no one noticed up until very late. We permaban people for less.

This is not a man who wants to change. This is a man who wants to act like he has the moral high ground and wants to mock the people on this wiki just because the stats on this website don't fit his narrative. We have no need for that kind of behavior here. Not now, not ever.

The fact that he was unbanned in the first place after everything that's happened is already absurd, trying to grant leniency for this kind of behavior because of some false assumption of "we can't know if they actually improve during their ban" after repeated showings of no change is even worse.
Click to expand...
SomebodyData said:
But he wanted a perma-ban and it was their own decision. After that began discussion of a ban.
Click to expand...
I am sorry to break @Random-Helper323's advice to stop, so I'll give my actual last cent here.

I'd like this situation to actually be over and actually decide a lenght for Charmader's ban, I do not think that him storming off is a reason to stop arguing his ban, especially when others above mentioned that they'd actually want him to get permabanned with no chance for him to "change his mind and go back".
FinePoint said:
snip
Click to expand...
I'd like for you to also give an actual opinion on the matter too.
 
Last edited:
FinePoint said:
For the record, I think the idea itself that any ban be truly 'permanent' is irrational to begin with.

We should always be open to appeal. I prefer the term 'indefinite'.

It's an indication that we will not let them back unless something changes, whereas any timed ban expires on its own even if the circumstances remain exactly the same then. From that perspective, I do think they have a purpose even if they can be appealed.
Click to expand...
You brought him back with no indication anything had changed. None of you had had contact with him after his first permanent ban, barring the sockpuppets, which do not help his case. The staff member involved in the appeal case with the latest contact at the time of said appeal was me, detailed in the report I gave on his behavior in the server I had been apart of. This was nonetheless outvoted. I do not count the appeal itself, because that's worth less than the data it uses up to send. Anybody can act nice for one message. A persistent pattern of behavior is not so easy to fake.

If you want to espouse a standard, that's fine. Please keep them consistent moving forward, or else I don't quite know what we're doing here.
 
Last edited:
Crabwhale said:
You brought him back with no indication anything had changed. None of you had had contact with him after his first permanent ban, barring the sockpuppets, which do not help his case. The staff member involved in the appeal case with the latest contact at the time of said appeal was me, detailed in the report I gave on his behavior in the server I had been apart of. This was nonetheless outvoted. I do not count the appeal itself, because that's worth less than the data it uses up to send. Anybody can act nice for one message. A persistent pattern of behavior is easier to fake.

If you want to espouse a standard, that's fine. Please keep them consistent moving forward, or else I don't quite know what we're doing here.
Click to expand...
I mean. His appeal spanned literal years. We told him our expectations and he was respectful. I think it is at least a little irrational to say "we will never trust your ass ever again" when we, staff members, operate with limited information in these regards. Even still, reinstating a permanent ban for how petty his actions are is really heavy handed.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
I mean. His appeal spanned literal years. We told him our expectations and he was respectful. I think it is at least a little irrational to say "we will never trust your ass ever again" when we, staff members, operate with limited information in these regards. Even still, reinstating a permanent ban for how petty his actions are is really heavy handed.
Click to expand...
Agreed. 🙏
 
As one of the people that engaged with Charmander on site extensively, mostly due to UTDR powerscaling, I struggle to think of anything he said and did (since unbanning) that would warrant ban.
Punishment seems excessive even in light of previous offences.
Fin
 
Qurbonboev said:
As one of the people that engaged with Charmander on site extensively, mostly due to UTDR powerscaling, I struggle to think of anything he said and did (since unbanning) that would warrant ban.
Punishment seems excessive even in light of previous offences.
Fin
Click to expand...
Yes, mostly agreed, but he requested his permanent ban himself. 🙏
 
@ALEPHGOAT is a user who is currently on a self-requested ban. Recently, after adding me on Discord, they told me that they're a sockpuppet of @Urshani.

How can you trust that this Discord user is that same person? As always, ironclad proof is impossible, but here's them linking a google doc to me which perfectly matches this blog that they made and linked to.

Given this, I think their ban reason should be altered to make it clear that they're a sockpuppet, and shouldn't be treated with the usual "auto unban upon request" attitude we usually give self-requested bans.
 
Last edited:
Agnaa said:
@ALEPHGOAT, a user who is currently on a self-requested ban. Recently, after adding me on Discord, they told me that they're a sockpuppet of @Urshani.

How can you trust that this Discord user is that same person? As always, ironclad proof is impossible, but here's them linking a google doc to me which perfectly matches this blog that they made and linked to.

Given this, I think their ban reason should be altered to make it clear that they're a sockpuppet, and shouldn't be treated with the usual "auto unban upon request" attitude we usually give self-requested bans.
Click to expand...
That seems perfectly fine to me. Thank you for helping out. 🙏❤️
 
Agnaa said:
Given this, I think their ban reason should be altered to make it clear that they're a sockpuppet, and shouldn't be treated with the usual "auto unban upon request" attitude we usually give self-requested bans.
Click to expand...
Naturally, though I feel like them coming forth and admitting to this when they didn't have to makes it likely we'd accept an appeal as well (unless this sockpuppet did something really bad).
 
Last edited:
Agnaa said:
@ALEPHGOAT is a user who is currently on a self-requested ban. Recently, after adding me on Discord, they told me that they're a sockpuppet of @Urshani.

How can you trust that this Discord user is that same person? As always, ironclad proof is impossible, but here's them linking a google doc to me which perfectly matches this blog that they made and linked to.

Given this, I think their ban reason should be altered to make it clear that they're a sockpuppet, and shouldn't be treated with the usual "auto unban upon request" attitude we usually give self-requested bans.
Click to expand...
I knew from the very beginning this was an Urshani sockpuppet. The way they argued and the blogs they pulled up were far too similar to say otherwise.

Should be kept banned, the user clearly does not want to contribute to the wiki in good faith.
 
As far as I know this isn't something prohibited. If a person uses AI text, unless he uses it as some sort of source you're just expected to treat it as if he's the one who's writing it.
 
At best using AI to write your arguments is at best heavily discouraged.

But that doesn't really matter here because Alt just straight up wasn't using AI. To repeat what I said in the other thread, that's just exactly how he talks when he's debating.
If you actually check the reasoning the AI gives its mostly shit like "highly structured reasoning", "very even sentence quality" and "balanced, measured language" .

If you don't take my word for it or the AI detectors that Alt showed you can just look at the stuff like long time periods between responses as supportive evidence. If Alt was just using AI he should be able to respond basically instantly and yet there are big 10+ minutes long gaps between his response and the message he's responding to. Unless Alt is pulling some 1000 IQ move and waits it out 😭
 
DavidTPPM said:
If you don't take my word for it or the AI detectors that Alt showed you can just look at the stuff like long time periods between responses as supportive evidence. If Alt was just using AI he should be able to respond basically instantly and yet there are big 10+ minutes long gaps between his response and the message he's responding to. Unless Alt is pulling some 1000 IQ move and waits it out 😭
Click to expand...
Great, but what guarantees that he won't wait a while before replying so that no one gets suspicious?
I mean, even the least intelligent person would realize that sending long replies in quick succession would raise suspicion.

I just want to know the answer so I can continue the debate with peace of mind.
 
Soulking22334 said:
Great, but what guarantees that he won't wait a while before replying so that no one gets suspicious?
Click to expand...
It's literally impossible to 100% prove or disprove that. But it's so painfully unlikely
Soulking22334 said:
I mean, even the least intelligent person would realize that sending long replies in quick succession would raise suspicion.
Click to expand...
By this exact logic even the least intelligent person would realize their AI messages would get detected. Like if you're saying he thought it out sooooo deeply then he should have also known to use anti-AI detection apps on top since that's literally what people that actually use AI for stuff like essays and projects irl do.

You're assuming he thought of everything that would otherwise prove he's not using AI, EXCEPT for the one most obvious thing because it fits your narrative.
Soulking22334 said:
I just want to know the answer so I can continue the debate with peace of mind.
Click to expand...
No. No you don't. This is just like in the Naruto heat thread, you're reading to support your agenda, not to understand.

Any time you're faced with evidence that you're wrong you just ignore it or come up with some wild theory about why it could theoretically be wrong. You don't care about the answer, you care about being right.
 
DavidTPPM said:
No. No you don't. This is just like in the Naruto heat thread, you're reading to support your agenda, not to understand.

Any time you're faced with evidence that you're wrong you just ignore it or come up with some wild theory about why it could theoretically be wrong. You don't care about the answer, you care about being right.
Click to expand...
buddy look at my last post there , i agreed with op , stop lying
DavidTPPM said:
By this exact logic even the least intelligent person would realize their AI messages would get detected. Like if you're saying he thought it out sooooo deeply then he should have also known to use anti-AI detection apps on top since that's literally what people that actually use AI for stuff like essays and projects irl do.

You're assuming he thought of everything that would otherwise prove he's not using AI, EXCEPT for the one most obvious thing because it fits your narrative.
Click to expand...
They're all possibilities

DavidTPPM said:
It's literally impossible to 100% prove or disprove that. But it's so painfully unlikely
Click to expand...
I hope so, because I've already started getting into the debate again.
 
I would actually like to request a thread ban for @Soulking22334 from any Naruto CRTs. As seen in the earlier complaint against him here, and then later his blatant attempt to derail the very same thread where he started to argue irrelevant things, refusing to acknowledge already accepted things like kirin's speed or the filler canonicity. Then he continued to throw random things hoping that something would stick. These and his earlier conduct in the thread has caused it to be so derailed that OP now has to close it and think about making a new one even though none of the arguments from the OP were being discussed for the most part. Then he goes on to say stuff like "bad faith no jutsu : ai debate mod , the strongest naruto fans jutsu" in another instance in the Bleach general. My point is that it is obvious this person has an agenda against Naruto and doesn't want to argue in good faith. Which is why, if this is applicable, I would request a thread ban for him from any future Naruto threads.
 
About the supposed AI use allegation against me by @Soulking22334.

I want to remind everyone that AI is notorious for false flagging stuff that is not Ai made, examples of this can be found across any discussion forums about students complaining about how annoying it is to constantly prove that they didn’t use AI to write their essay/thesis because a random AI detector used by their professors said so.

To illustrate my point here are 1/2/3 three different websites that say I was not using AI.

Moreover, the concerns raised by the AI detectors include, but are not limited to,
“highly structured reasoning", "very even sentence quality" and "balanced, measured language". This is expected, as we were discussing concepts related to dimensionality, cosmology, and number theory. These are highly complex subjects that require ideas to be presented in a clear, structured, and precise manner to avoid confusion or misinterpretation. As such, writing that is considered organized and carefully reasoned is a natural consequence of the topic itself. Which many tier 1 experts can attest to.

I try to keep my responses and opinions as clear, well-structured, and coherent as possible. And many can attest to that whether it be on-site or off-site, with this being the only time I have been accused of such.

Moreover, this accusation was directly followed by a wave of malicious replies that were unneeded

https://vsbattles.com/threads/ban-kai-bleach-general-discussion.107575/post-7819216
https://vsbattles.com/threads/ban-kai-bleach-general-discussion.107575/post-7819221
https://vsbattles.com/threads/ban-kai-bleach-general-discussion.107575/post-7819227

This attack directly stems from his inability to counter what was being argued instead of the need to and I quote
“I don't want to debate someone who is using bad faith and isn't putting any effort into the discussion.”
Click to expand...
Furthermore, he had verified with another AI detecting site which showed a 0% chance of AI use. Supporting the idea that he was looking for an excuse.

Not only that, but he was given a warning not too long ago for obstructing a Naruto CRT. In which he once again displayed his hostile behavior
https://vsbattles.com/threads/rule-violation-reports-new-forum.107529/post-7813339
 
Last edited:
HelloThere1089 said:
I would actually like to request a thread ban for @Soulking22334 from any Naruto CRTs. As seen in the earlier complaint against him here, and then later his blatant attempt to derail the very same thread where he started to argue irrelevant things, refusing to acknowledge already accepted things like kirin's speed or the filler canonicity. Then he continued to throw random things hoping that something would stick. These and his earlier conduct in the thread has caused it to be so derailed that OP now has to close it and think about making a new one even though none of the arguments from the OP were being discussed for the most part. Then he goes on to say stuff like "bad faith no jutsu : ai debate mod , the strongest naruto fans jutsu" in another instance in the Bleach general. My point is that it is obvious this person has an agenda against Naruto and doesn't want to argue in good faith. Which is why, if this is applicable, I would request a thread ban for him from any future Naruto threads.
Click to expand...
Well, if what you're saying is true, then why did I stop doing that? if i have agenda against naruto why did i stopped arguing and agreed with op https://vsbattles.com/threads/minor-naruto-revisions-part-1.192741/post-7817403 https://vsbattles.com/threads/minor-naruto-revisions-part-1.192741/post-7817424

why did i stopped doing that ? stopping talking as soon as I agree with the points won’t help my agenda. if I were truly a hater, I wouldn’t have stopped bringing up random things to derail the discussion, and I won’t stop bringing up ambiguous points.
 
Soulking22334 said:
Well, if what you're saying is true, then why did I stop doing that? if i have agenda against naruto why did i stopped arguing and agreed with op https://vsbattles.com/threads/minor-naruto-revisions-part-1.192741/post-7817403 https://vsbattles.com/threads/minor-naruto-revisions-part-1.192741/post-7817424
Click to expand...
You didn't stop tho. You quieted down a little when Damage asked you to stop derailing, then you started throwing random stuff later. Now the thread is so obviously derailed that it doesn't matter if you stopped bringing stuff up. I suggest anybody reading this to see the chronology of the messages in the thread.
Soulking22334 said:
why did i stopped doing that ? stopping talking as soon as I agree with the points won’t help my agenda. if I were truly a hater, I wouldn’t have stopped bringing up random things to derail the discussion, and I won’t stop bringing up ambiguous points.
Click to expand...
Thanks for admitting that you were bringing up random and ambiguous points to begin with. Idk why "I derailed 90% of the thread but I was good for the last 10% so I didn't do anything bad" would help your case at all. In any case, I likely won't be replying in this thread further unless something big happens, because this is reserved for the mods.
 
HelloThere1089 said:
You didn't stop tho. You quieted down a little when Damage asked you to stop derailing, then you started throwing random stuff later. Now the thread is so obviously derailed that it doesn't matter if you stopped bringing stuff up. I suggest anybody reading this to see the chronology of the messages in the thread.
Click to expand...
Or you could be more honest and less critical of me, and say that I began to be convinced by his points until I eventually became fully convinced.



Because if I really wanted to do what you're trying to accuse me of, you would have seen my comment after the mention of rays of sunlight and toneri
HelloThere1089 said:
Thanks for admitting that you were bringing up random and ambiguous points to begin with. Idk why "I derailed 90% of the thread but I was good for the last 10% so I didn't do anything bad" would help your case at all. In any case, I likely won't be replying in this thread further unless something big happens, because this is reserved for the mods.
Click to expand...
"Well, if what you're saying is true"

It's hard to read when bitterness blinds you?
 
Using AI isn't against the rules. You have no right "to know for sure". This is not a rule violation, but carrying on in the RVRT about things that are not rule violations, is itself a rule violation. Disperse. The discussion is over. Shoo.
 
Well, I don't think that we should allow our members to let A.I. argue for them, as it would turn unmanageable for our staff and other members to deal with, but that does not seem to have been the case here. 🙏
 
Antvasima said:
Well, I don't think that we should allow our members to let A.I. argue for them, as it would turn unmanageable for our staff and other members to deal with, but that does not seem to have been the case here. 🙏
Click to expand...
A thread was made about proposing rules against it but was never concluded and/or there wasn't a consensus.

As it stands there's no rules against it, so we'd have to grant leniency to existing cases regardless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

FinePoint
  • Locked
Discussion Rule Word Salad
Replies
22
Views
2K
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
17
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
FlipLaScript
Loosening Up Tier 1 Rules
2
Replies
44
Views
3K
Kanogami
Kanogami
Back
Top