- 372
- 244
Already felt on the fence to disagree about this, but after reading that.. can put me for disagree
-
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.
Touhou Thread Rule Removal
- Thread starter Planck69
- Start date
-
- Tags
- touhou project
- Status
- 5,283
- 3,421
Topaz, nothing against you but I wouldn't recommend you being such an explicit spokesperson for Fuji (like posting a document written by her with her arguing explicitly). As far as I know this is not allowed and I think a user has already been banned for this (weekly spokesperson).
So be careful.
- 2,240
- 564
Folks ought to know, but ill cease.
- 372
- 244
I like you being here though
(also for the based epic battle fantasy pfp)
- 4,912
- 5,431
If I remember well, back when I was in RVR posting the comments a user that was banned at the time was posting because he was vaguely related to a situation I got told to stop. I don't think he'll get banned or anything if he continues but there's a chance a mod will come in and say "Hey, don't do glorified sock-puppeting with a banned member"
- 15,437
- 7,153
This only means that if repeated it is indeed a bannable offense tbf.
- 4,912
- 5,431
I think he'll get warned beforehand even if it's repeated.
So as long as Topaz doesn't ignore a mod warning, he'll be fine.
- 18,662
- 18,743
- Thread starter
- #50
I really don't need to say why posting on behalf of a banned user is frowned upon do I? This is a first time issue so I won't make much of a fuss about it but I'd ask you do not do that again.
- 2,240
- 564
I would like to mention that, according to these statements, what im doing isnt really that bad. Its not like im just spamming these out all willy-nilly. Its concise, straight to the point.
://
- 18,662
- 18,743
- Thread starter
- #52
It "not being that bad" is why I'm just saying not to keep doing it and not like, making a report. You've not been punished, it's just a heads up to keep this sort of thing to a minimum.
- 2,240
- 564
That is what was planned, to just leave the message and then not involve myself any more with this thread. Speaking of that- i will not involve myself further with this thread.
Ill see myself out
Oliver_de_jesus
He/Him- 24,906
- 17,833
I suggested to Fuji to block it from the Versus threads because fuji insisted it was outdated, I didn't know about Fuji putting it on CRT too, and I didn't expect it to last 4 months let alone the ban
- 13,328
- 21,295
Truth be told, I wasn't aware of an SMT topic ban, but that shouldn't have existed either imo
Anyone should be free to make CRTs for any verse, rather than it functionally being a private sandbox for a handful of users. I get wanting the verse to be specifically the way you want it since you believe you're the one that knows the verse best - and that having what amounts to randos making threads that appear to only screw the verse over is frustrating. I was like that with Black Clover. I was like that with Xenoblade. I still am like that with Guilty Gear. But locking down the verse ain't the answer
- 11,359
- 19,932
I will comment from a general point of view, first of all the rule involving the verse CRTs was meaningless and something that should never be accepted to begin with, there is no need to freeze revisions to a verse just because X user feels that way, either because they knows more or less or simply wants to do the revisions themselves.
Everyone has the right to inform themselves and create crts for the verse they like, and to avoid touching any sensitive topic there are rules that are used to ban certain crts that have already been extensively discussed, but these do not involve any type of revisions. The rule itself was selfish. I agree with the OP.
As for the VS match I don't have a concrete opinion, but I'm more on the end of removing it, since if the verse is never updated then it will never be used in matches again? For that leave it available for use and if it is updated on any occasion then a re-match is all that should be done.
Everyone has the right to inform themselves and create crts for the verse they like, and to avoid touching any sensitive topic there are rules that are used to ban certain crts that have already been extensively discussed, but these do not involve any type of revisions. The rule itself was selfish. I agree with the OP.
As for the VS match I don't have a concrete opinion, but I'm more on the end of removing it, since if the verse is never updated then it will never be used in matches again? For that leave it available for use and if it is updated on any occasion then a re-match is all that should be done.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
