• 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 Violations Reports - 57

Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay.
 
Medeus deleted it.
 
Thank you for helping out, and agreed.
 
Okay, decided I would report this as I believe it warrants a legitimate warning.

Recently, James Bond was upgraded by TheArsenal1212 based on a calculation found here in which the calculator (Butters) suggested the one calc included destruction of a tree, and ergo was 9-A based on our calc for a normal sized oak. That said, in another thread he consulted me on for the informatio, I told him the tree couldn't be used as it is A. visibly not destroyed and only cracked by that explosion, and B. (this is in hindsight) is so clearly smaller than a normal oak, which has a diameter over a meter.

After getting no response I had assumed it was fine since on multiple occasions I had told the user not to use the tree calc. But lo and behold I look back and Bond was upgraded to 9-A in all stats based on the calc I explicitly and repeatedly said could not be used. This would have been moderately more acceptable had I been notified of the upgrade- but I wasn't, and it isn't.

TL;DR A user consulted me on a calc that couldn't be used for an upgrade, said it could be used, I responded on multiple occasions saying that it couldn't, the user turned around and upgraded the character anyways without responding to me.
 
Since I changed my opinion on this three times, I'll leave my rewrites of this post below, going from oldest to newest as I learned more information:

  • After looking into it, TheArsenal1212 seemingly upgraded because he saw this sca of the feat later, where the tree was in fact destroyed down to the trunk, rendering your criticism of "it was only cracked" invalid, and since your other criticism of "it's clearly smaller" wasn't brought up until now, there's no reason he should have paid mind to it. Seems like not a huge deal but something for them to keep in mind, since they still should have asked you for more confirmation.
  • Actually you did explicitly say it shouldn't be used, so he shouldn't have used it, and should get a warning indeed.
  • Actually they did apparently have two other 9-A feats which they used when upgrading. I don't know the validity of these other feats but it's not the only reason Bond was upgraded, and assuming they're right about the other two feats, Bond would still be 9-A without the tree issue. So I don't think this is much of an issue at all.
 
  • I responded to that sca. I said it was reasonable to assume the visibly still in-tact upper part was just moved. Since, again, the relevant scan literally shows it. I agree my second criticism shouldn't be minded but still. I did respond to that scan in particular.
  • Aight.
  • The others weren't regarding Bond himself, the building exploding thing was actually calc'd in that blog IIRC and was 9-B (as all the other calcs were). So no. Bond isn't 9-A without the tree feat.
The italics bit I feel I should expand on- my last response here was directly in response to the mention of that sca. So yeah, I knew everything in the scenario and said "nah that ain't legit" and the upgrade went through regardless without further input from me.
 
I am fine with if you give him a warning. Not a severe one though. I have some experience with this member, and he does not seem to mean any harm.
 
I have experience as well, I'm just... greatly displeased with how the situation was handled.
 
I told him that it isn't necessary.
 
I'm being accused of trolling by Omimi in this thread: https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/3520846#134

I appreciate it if someone could tell him to cool off.

I don't think this is serious enough to warrant a punishment, but I don't want this to be escalated any further and risk becoming something more serious.
 
Damage3245 even asking what percentage of Jigen sasuke scale to like he does not even know how power scale work here how should i/any one know about that

a stuff member shouldnt act like that

he is literally trying to confusing me with weird questions which has nothing to do with scaling

if its not to trolling than ...........
 
ShadowWarrior1999 said:
Omimi has constantly been aggressive in Naruto threads.
Click to expand...
it was in the past

i don't remember being constantly been aggressive in Naruto threads. after i got my last warning

so why are u lying ?

did i ever offended u somehow

u even did go to my Message_Wall and making fun off me and accused me for no reason when i had noting do with u
 
I will restart it soon.
 
Continued here: https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/3613455
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
37 38 39
Replies
2K
Views
114K
BreezeHM
BreezeHM
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
A minor addition about discussion rules
Replies
4
Views
815
Deleted member 40688
  • Locked
Clarification Of Sentence Phrasings And Addition Of Expected Punishments For Each Type Of Rule Breach For All Rules Pages
Replies
21
Views
2K
Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer
Mr. Bambu
  • Locked
Slight Adjustment to Rules Regarding Original Works
2 3
Replies
80
Views
9K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top