• 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 - 62

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sera EX said:
Wait, there's a misunderstanding. Prom was talking about images people are posting on threads, not flirting with minors or erotic role-playing. There's a thick line between "posting suggestive images of any kind) and roleplaying or flirting.

In that case, we should just make the rule that should've already existed (no NSFW images) and add "also do not create image-sharing threads that are prone to attracting these kinds of images" to it.
Click to expand...
this is good.

But thing is, that I bet people will try to work around the rules unless they know what will be the consequence, which can deter people from trying this again basically:

"also, do not create image-sharing threads that are prone to attracting these kinds of images, if people do they will face a strict ban which the sentence would increase depending on the severity of the thread"
 
ElixirBlue said:
This is very subjective.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly why I'm opposed to this "knowing it when you see it" mentality. Literally scroll up a few dozen posts for an example of me thinking that I know it when I see it, only for other people to think it's perfectly kosher. Clearly, I have a different interpretation of what's acceptable than others.

We need to have some sort of basic criteria, otherwise there may as well not be a rule against it at all.
 
1. The Miller test isn't just about NSFW stuff, it covers all sorts of obscenity, so it isn't fitting for our uses.

2. The Miller test itself relies on a "know it when you see it" clause. All it adds is removing other "obscene" things and adding an exemption for artistic works.

3. We largely have this rule in place because of Fandom, and they don't care about literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. We still cannot post sex scenes from verses that are on the site, even though those verses have literary value, and I don't want to change the rules to allow us to do that.

4. I don't think there's anything wrong with the basic criteria. If you can't judge it accurately, so what? You're not the sole arbiter on these decisions. Of course some users will have outliers in how they judge rules like this, but that doesn't matter.
 
It's been said multiple times, but it needs to be stressed that there isn't any good measure for NSFW content, and what's too NSFW. People often can know and can agree from a glance is something is too NSFW for the context, so all that really needs to be specified is not to post that kind of content. It's not particularly specific, but there isn't much way to be specific here. We all know what kinds of things would fall under that category.
 
1.) I'm not saying we need to apply it to all sorts of obscenity, obviously. We're having a discussion about NSFW pornography. When deciding what should be NSFW or not in cases where it's unclear, why shouldn't it be used?

2.) Those additions are critically important. If we were to just go by the classifical definition of "knowing it when you see it", AKA "anything patently offensive, appealing to prurient interest, and of no redeeming social value", you'd knock out a good number of verses in the process. Hence, the Miller test, which opens it up to "applying local community standard."

3.) Christ, I'm not saying "let in the sex scenes." We can say no to that without using the Miller Test, obviously.

4.) Of course I can't judge it accurately 100% of the time. Hell, I'll donate my left asscheek to science if there is a single person on this wiki that can definitively decide on their own without consulting anyone what's acceptable and what's not 100% of the time, because there isn't. This is all subjective. We're trying to eliminate as much subjectivity as possible without making the rules too clunky in the process.
 
My point is that the Miller test does not eliminate any subjectivity. All that does is turn "No NSFW pics, you know what these are." to the legalese of "No patently offensive sexual conduct or excretory functions."

If we were to just go by the classifical definition of "knowing it when you see it"... you'd knock out a good number of verses in the process.

No we don't. That's pretty much what we go by currently and we don't knock out verses. Since these rules apply to multimedia content uploaded, not to what verses are allowed.
 
Can we not discuss off topic stuff and go back to getting over to making the rule? We need the rule that forbids NSFW images to begin with and avoid making threads prone to attracting that stuff.
 
Christ people, it isn't that massively hard to y'know, tell when something is very obviously creepy and masturbation fuel.

Just add the rule as Sera suggested, we don't need any criteria to judge the thousands of pictures being uploaded to the wiki constantly, since as much as it doesn't seem like it, we have more to life than judging whatever waifu you have.
 
Antvasima said:
"Please do not create image-sharing threads featuring characters that you find attractive. This is because they often lead from friendly fun to sexualized drawings of minors or otherwise get out of hand into NSFW areas."
Click to expand...
I modified my earlier suggestion somewhat.

I still think that it seems more appropriate with an entirely new regulation text, and to place it in the Discussion Rules, where we should preferably place regulations regarding discussions, as can be seen in the title.
 
Okay. Thanks.
 
I think the new text is good enough to work as a discussion rule for solving the NSFW thread issue.
 
I think yes. I don't mind waitng for others' inputs, though.
 
Yes, we might as well add it to the Discussion Rules.
 
Hello. I don't mean to be rude to my fellow user(s) but I have suspicion to believe that Buttersamurai is sockpuppetinv, and yes I have proof. At the very least I'd like to clear my conscious with this stuff but I'll show my proof first.

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Message_Wall:Metalthegear12

Been on vs battles since the 15th of April, 2019, has only commented on threads that Butters has either made, commented on, or includes verses he supports and I have no seen them on any other threads. Always agrees with butters and votes for the characters he votes for FRA

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ce221808?dir=prev&target=Ce221808

Has been on the wiki since August 22, 2019, and has only commented on threads that are related to butters, has verses he likes or otherwise. Have never seen him on a thread that didn't involve something butters likes. Always agrees with butters and follows the FRAing. CC has also commented on some of Hank Hill's skill even if he's not a supporter of the verse, which isn't the greatest evidence I'm aware but it supports it.

Both of these users have only been in threads discussing verses that Butters likes; Hollow Knight, King of The Hill, Ace Attorney, The Simpsons, Naughty Bear, commented on his undertale threads and I have never seen them in a thread that Butters himself isn't in which is overly suspicious, especially when they haven't been on other wikis with the exception of Ce, but that was only adding a picture which isn't really hard and also was his only two contributions to the wiki. May I also add that Butters has his own time spent on death battle fanon wiki, similar to that of Ce.

I don't want to point fingers but isn't there something we can do to make absolutely certain these aren't the same people? Please? It'd certainly make me feel a lot better.
 
Hrmm. If that is true, virtually all of the Versus Threads Butters has been involved with will have to be redone.

On the other hand, links to specific threads where you've seen this would be useful.
 
Make sure you message the offenders on their walls.
 
Like more than half the time he does his own reasons. Check the threads if you need proof. There are plenty where he votes in his own.
 
https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/3836222

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/3614955

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/3601223

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/3600731

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/3597337

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/3593588

(a lot of these are one of the two accounts voting for a character butters supports to beat Sans, with big walls of text similarly to how Butters types up his arguments)

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/3455766

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/2952704

https://vsbattles.fandom.comwiki/Special:Contributions/Joe2019

(Another person who's only posted 19 times in threads only butters would care about. Just something I noticed halfway through)

These are the ones I could find based off a glance with Ce, Butters and Metalthegear being in the same threads voting for the same characters.
 
This thread makes me the most suspicious. Ce is typing incredibly similar to Butters - that is, short, choppy sentences. Screenshots below should elaborate on my point - ask yourself just how similar they are.

I firmly believe Ce is definitely a sock.

A22C93CC-92C8-4683-8CDC-7C7229182B9B
D0F868E3-D88A-4743-B2F2-F8B12FA3454A
 
Stop commenting if you don't have anything productive about this to say. It's called making sure
 
ElixirBlue said:
> with big walls of text similarly to how Butters types up his argument
Similar, sure, but that still is vague for a ban
Click to expand...
Maybe for a ban sure but can't we do something to make 100% sure this isn't the case?
 
All people type out big walls. Not as many type in the same, choppy writing, with several unfixed typos, all supporting the exact same verses and characters with absolutely zero inconsistencies.
 
Question: Are Ce and Metal ever seen on any threads that Butters isn't? Because if not, that's some pretty damning evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
39 40 41
Replies
2K
Views
120K
Mr. Bambu
Mr. Bambu
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
A minor addition about discussion rules
Replies
4
Views
841
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
JoshSSJGod
Rule Revision Regarding Banned Users and Proxies.
2
Replies
54
Views
3K
Vzearr
Vzearr
Back
Top