FANDOM


  • Antvasima
    Antvasima closed this thread because:
    https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:3679589
    22:55, November 4, 2019

    Please report any rule violations in this thread. Notifying us of such incidents is highly appreciated.

    Additionally, kindly report any sockpuppets that you come across.

    Only report violations regarding the wiki rules. False reports due to personal vendettas are unacceptable.

    Also, this thread should be for reporting actual rule-breaking, not every single little disagreement.

    In cases of extreme vandalism or trolling, you can report the accounts at the VSTF wiki.

    If blocked members create sockpuppet accounts to circumvent their block repetitively, or several are created at almost the same time, you may contact the Fandom Staff, to politely request permanent range IP blocks.

    You can also find specific users with the Search Function by typing with the format: "User:Username"

    Here is a useful page for discovering sockpuppet accounts: http://vsbattles.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Log/newusers

    Notes:

    All staff members, kindly follow and bookmark this thread.

    Remember to inform members via their message walls if that you have reported them here, in case they have performed severe enough rule-violations to risk being blocked. However, this should only be used in uncertain cases, not if they have done something instantly ban worthy, or if their offenses are minor.

    It is against the Fandom rules to upload any offensive images to the wiki, so in order to show screencapture evidence of extremely bad behaviour, you must use external sites, such as Gyazo or Imgur, in order to not get globally banned yourself by the higher-ups:

    https://gyazo.com

    https://imgur.com/

    https://pasteboard.co

    Do not derail the Rule Violation Threads with irrelevant nonsense or internal disputes. It is solely for making serious, warranted reports of violations of the Site, Discussion, and Editing Rules, and not for discussion or side comments. Such posts should preferably be removed by the staff, and if a member continues to derail after being repeatedly told to stop, this will result in a temporary ban.

    Given the extreme levels of systematic harrassment towards this community, kindly remember to not share/post any evidence of malware or child abuse publicly in order to prevent unwillful distribution. Submit any evidence of child abuse and severe systematic threats to the police.

    If something goes outside the jurisdiction of the VS Battles wiki bureaucrats, or even the global Fandom staff, you need to report it personally to the authorities.

    Also, absolutely do not click on any random links from suspicious users. You could potentially access content that contains dangerous malware or illegal types of pornography, alternately tracks your IP address and location. If you are uncertain, please use this page to verify that the links are not dangerous.

    However, do not feed the trolls by discussing their behaviour here, as they get excited and motivated by any form of attention. Strictly report them to the staff, who then block them and mass-delete their contributions.

    If there are genuine serious problems with the behaviour of certain staff members, do not cause drama by extensively arguing about it here, but rather contact the Human Resources Group.

      Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • Reposting this from the last thread:

      I'm being accused of trolling by Omimi in this thread: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread: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.

        Loading editor
    • Damage3245 tried to accuse me and that i insulted him and i speak pathetic line just cuz i said "Are we even reading the same manga"

      https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:3520846#55

      he is the one start it by accusing me for no reason

        Loading editor
    • From the last thread.

      Reporting GoisSerb for what he said in this thread

      https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:3613215

        Loading editor
    • Gois is already blocked, seems like an obvious troll

        Loading editor
    • Alright, thanks.

        Loading editor
    • Is somebody else in the staff willing to investigate the Damage/Omimi situation?

        Loading editor
    • I looked at the thread, and Damage hasn't really done or said anything wrong, and it was Omimi accusing him of trolling that was inappropriate. I did give him a light warning on the thread.

        Loading editor
    • Okay. Thank you for the help.

        Loading editor
    • This user was borderline trolling in this thread. I'm not sure if it's trolling or, without using the "w word", just heavily inflating the characters abilities.

        Loading editor
    • I don't see how he's trolling, it's just a bad argument. Doesn't seem report worthy imo

        Loading editor
    • Tbh, I was going to report Ted Ed for other reasons, and what he said here was pretty tame compared to what he said on other threads. I recall him being downright hostile on that one Dragon Ball thread. He did have a history of trolling on Mortal Kombat threads among others.

      I was also in a discussion with another Admin, and he seems to agree that he might be Misaka Mikoto.

        Loading editor
    • Who is Misaka?

        Loading editor
    • Please don't bring me up without my knowledge... I don't wanna be looped into things.

        Loading editor
    • Well, without any evidence that it is Misaka, perhaps a warning to behave better would be enough for the moment?

        Loading editor
    • This user should be warned for showcasing various levels of hostility and agression. He's currently bashing me and Matt in a pretty uncalled for manor. https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Message_Wall:Hl3_or_bust?useskin=oasis


      Thread: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:3626279?useskin=oasis#28

        Loading editor
    • I recall other staff members gave him multiple warnings, should he receive a temporary block? Or is a final warning good for now?

        Loading editor
    • I'd say either a warning or a block, I'd prefer the latter however due to his very aggressive and foul tone. I do also recall him being warned in the past before which would merit a ban at that point.

        Loading editor
    • I have blocked him for a month, hopefully he should learn from that.

        Loading editor
    • DDM, can you please read context before you just drop the ban gun on someone?

      He was warned once. Literally once.

      And Price of Counters, and really, me too, were acting as bad, if not even worst than he was. This ban was completely rushed and unnecessary

        Loading editor
    • I'm gonna have to agree with Crimson on this one, the ban was kinda uncalled for cause if being rude was a bannable offense a lot more people would be banned by now ovo

        Loading editor
    • Warned once, by Ant about him Constantly having issues with Matt. What does he do? Insult Matt and me again. Like you said Crimsion, please read the context. Also, I only acted semi condescending, don't try to paint me as the antagonist.

        Loading editor
    • all I'm saying that if being rude is a bannable offense than a lot of people would have been banned by now also from what I've seen a lot of people have issues with Matt, but thats a argument for another day ovo

        Loading editor
    • The Prince of Counters wrote: Warned once, by Ant about him Constantly having issues with Matt. What does he do? Insult Matt and me again. Like you said Crimsion, please read the context. Also, I only acted semi condescending, don't try to paint me as the antagonist.

      Unfortunate, the context here is also part of the stuff that ended up getting Matt himself reported to Fandom itself. That’s important to note too. Hl3 has done nearly nothing wrong here. He’s been slightly aggressive and that’s all.

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima was the one who gave him a final warning on this thread here and based on him being very hostile throughout the thread. And it wasn't just Antvasima but also Andy. And this wasn't the first time Antvasima gave him warnings as it appears he has had multiple on his message wall. His attitude was also pretty explosive. And he was constantly insulting Matt when he wasn't even on the thread. It's not a long term block, but it is justified.

      Also, it doesn't matter how long ago the warning was, even old warnings count as history.

        Loading editor
    • Well of course, but ultimately theres a difference between being rude and being warned for being extremely rude towards a staff member in the past and then just randomly insulting him out of the blue for no reason.

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote: Antvasima was the one who gave him a final warning on this thread here and based on him being very hostile throughout the thread. And this wasn't the first time Antvasima gave him warnings. And he was constantly insulting Matt when he wasn't even on the thread. It's not a long term block, but it is justified.

      Can you link the actual comment at least? Because the thread itself is long and has many things that could be interpreted differently

        Loading editor
    • "Only acted semi condescending"

      "The sarcasm is pretty cute tho, I remember when I was an edgy 16 year old and watched "papa franku" too lol."

      Also, if you think that's insulting you must have paper thin skin. All he said towards Matt was that "he can't take an L"

      And, again, Hl3 didn't even get warned about this. It's bullshit.

        Loading editor
    • The warning in question is also a year old DDM. We don’t take into account offenses from that long ago

        Loading editor
    • To my knowledge his only warning besides the one on the Katanagatari thread was like, a year ago, it certainly expired 

        Loading editor
    • Crimson, it's almost funny how you aren't even paying attention to what he said, for whatever reason.


      No, your memory is just bad. Matt and you were the ones stonewalling, and the 2-A is so fucking blatant it's not even funny


      Ah yes. The most potent of arguments, the Tone Argument. Thanks dad.


      Honestly, please shut up. Literally nothing you have said about Nasuverse has been agreed to by anyone that knows what the fuck they're talking about, and that includes you.


      Don't leave things out next time to make it seem like he did nothing.

        Loading editor
    • And yess DDM, older warnings count as history, but on a practical level time has also always been used as a mitigating factor on evaluation. A year is definitely a big mitigating factor.

        Loading editor
    • People have said worse and haven't even been warned for it me lad

        Loading editor
    • The Prince of Counters wrote: Crimson, it's almost funny how you aren't even paying attention to what he said, for whatever reason.


      No, your memory is just bad. Matt and you were the ones stonewalling, and the 2-A is so fucking blatant it's not even funny


      Ah yes. The most potent of arguments, the Tone Argument. Thanks dad.


      Honestly, please shut up. Literally nothing you have said about Nasuverse has been agreed to by anyone that knows what the fuck they're talking about, and that includes you.


      Don't leave things out next time to make it seem like he did nothing.

      Those are rude yes, but none of those are actual insults towards any party, besides poor memory.

        Loading editor
    • The Katanagatari thread and final warning was only 5 days ago; quite recent. It's not "A year ago." And his response to the warning was also very rude. And insulting Matt out of the blue on a thread where he wasn't even there was also very uncalled for. And side note, actually we do take warnings into account no matter how long ago they were. At least that is what Sera said.

      Anyway, I'd appreciate if you guys stopped bombarding this thread.

        Loading editor
    • And, again, you keep forgetting the part where you were as bad a him. If anything, he should get unbanned, and get a warning alongside you and me. There's no reason for him, and only him, to get punished here.

        Loading editor
    • It’s a bit absurd to take a warning from a year ago and just assume no change has been made or at least an attempt though.

      People have bad days and threads can be overly irritating. It’s kind of a fact on here but that’s all I have to say on that

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote: The Katanagatari thread and final warning was only 5 days ago; quite recent. And his response to the warning was also very rude. And insulting Matt out of the blue on a thread where he wasn't even there was also very uncalled for. And side note, actually we do take warnings into account no matter how long ago they were.

      I’ve already responded to all those points. You have yet to actually supply the actual warning, the supposed insults are not actually insulting anyone, and time has always been treated as a mitigating factor, so for practical purposes within this scenario it is basically a nonfactor

        Loading editor
    • Arguments can get very heated, tis something that always happens on this site and something that always will happen on it

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote: Anyway, I'd appreciate if you guys stopped bombarding this thread.

      So, hold on, going against a unjustified ban counts as "bombarding the thread"?

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote: Anyway, I'd appreciate if you guys stopped bombarding this thread.

      We don’t like the amount of posts we’ve taken up either, but the fact is that this level of punishment is uncalled for, which as you can see many people have already noted.

        Loading editor
    • Crimson, nothing I said was as bad as the behavior he showed. He quite into came into the thread with hostility. Also you yourself made several strawman fallaices at me in the thread and acted more condescending than i have. Again, don't shift the blame onto others.

        Loading editor
    • Literally your first comment to him was as follows

      "Funnily enough if i recall you were one who stone walled and didn't even debate much. It was pretty handily debunked."

      The discussion opened on bad terms.

        Loading editor
    • The Prince of Counters wrote: Crimson, nothing I said was as bad as the behavior he showed. He quite into came into the thread with hostility. Also you yourself made several strawman fallaices at me in the thread and acted more condescending than i have. Again, don't shift the blame onto others.

      I find it quite interesting personally you blame him for shifting the blame by saying that he was doing exactly the same thing kek. Irony much.

        Loading editor
    • Honestly, it just seems like his friends are getting upset over him getting banned at this point. Mob mentality isn't good for anyone.

        Loading editor
    • Did you read my post? I literally said i should get warned too. You also called him salty and bitter, which is a much more direct insult, but i digress.

        Loading editor
    • The Prince of Counters wrote: Honestly, it just seems like his friends are getting upset over him getting banned at this point. Mob mentality isn't good for anyone.

      Oh, Hl3 isn’t the friend of many people kek. It’s just most people can spot a unfair ban. Anyway, Appeal to Motive isn’t the best in this situation when actual arguments are being presented.

        Loading editor
    • Unfair ban? Trust me, this isn't an unfair ban, there have been plenty of actual users getting banned unfairly. Anyway, yall should quit spamming here and derailing and let the staff handle it.

        Loading editor
    • hardly derailing when the whole thread is about banning people and rule breaking-

        Loading editor
    • Anyway, as it stands, based on the precedent set by this ban, I’d estimate about half the wiki, including PoC himself, could arguably be banned using this logic, which opens up a large can of worms on our standards anyway. It would be best just to give everyone involved a warning whether or not you think it was rude or insulting.

        Loading editor
    • Just because you consider "fair" doesnt mean everyone else does me friendo ovo

        Loading editor
    • The Prince of Counters wrote: Unfair ban? Trust me, this isn't an unfair ban, there have been plenty of actual users getting banned unfairly. Anyway, yall should quit spamming here and derailing and let the staff handle it.

      You mean like the staff who have commented so far supporting what we’ve said?

        Loading editor
    • Hl3 was pretty rude to PoC on that thread, even if I didn’t see outright insults from him, but I do agree that a warning from a year ago combined with a bit of rudeness isn’t enough for an immediate month long ban.

        Loading editor
    • The Prince of Counters wrote: Mob mentality isn't good for anyone.

      Mob Mentality is the idea of a large group of people overriding logic in favor of one belief everyone is already spouting. We're simply giving our own opinions and perspectives, using our own reasoning, and there happens to be a large group of people. This isn't a mob.

        Loading editor
    • DDM this is a massive reach for banning someone. Did you even bother reading the thread where PoC was provoking HI3 to insult him? Like Yobo said, at least half the people in the wiki would be banned with that logic, so this ban is unjustified and at best should've just given him a warning.

        Loading editor
    • I did read the thread, and didn't care about the outcome. However, while Prince of the Counters may have been rather blunt, but he didn't sound malicious or explosive. HI3 on the other hand was very explosive and especially him insulting Matthew Schroeder behind his back. And he's had numerous instances of behaving like this. Okay, it's less about the number of warnings you have gotten, and more about the number of times you legitimately acted out. Which he's been known for using excessive profanity and has deliberately insulted people who disagree with him. He was also clearly the instigator. Especially after he recieved his final warning 5 days ago.

      I don't mind unblocking him, you guys really need to stop cluttering up the thread instead of taking it up to message walls.

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus
      DarkDragonMedeus removed this reply because:
      innapropriate
      03:24, October 21, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • "Okay, it's less about the number of warnings you have gotten, and more about the number of times you legitimately acted out."

      Is that allowed? Cause I don't really think it is

        Loading editor
    • Well, there are numerous things that I could point out there, but the most glaring issue is that walls are simply not where this discussion is meant to be. Taking all the people in a argument into a wall does not work for any thread, and that includes rule violation. If we have that much of a issue with discussion of a ban, it may be time for a separate thread just for that.

        Loading editor
    • @DDM >> Cluttering up the thread instead of taking it to message walls

      Uhh, excuse me, but this is a Rule Violation report thread. You've banned someone for illogical reasons, this is like the number 1 spot to discuss this stuff. Also in this very thread.

      Remember to inform members via their message walls if that you have reported them here, in case they have performed severe enough rule-violations to risk being blocked. However, this should only be used in uncertain cases, not if they have done something instantly ban worthy, or if their offenses are minor.

      You did not even follow this part of the rules. Nothing that HI3 did is remotely immediately ban worthy.

        Loading editor
    • Theglassman12 wrote: DDM this is a massive reach for banning someone. Did you even bother reading the thread where PoC was provoking HI3 to insult him? Like Yobo said, at least half the people in the wiki would be banned with that logic, so this ban is unjustified and at best should've just given him a warning.


      This part is a load of shit, nothing i said at the start would be able to provoke him. He started angry, and i said he was stone-walling. Thanks but don't try to make it seem like I'm the one who made him angry whenever he came into the thread angry.

        Loading editor
    • @PoC

      Riiiiiiiiiiiight, and the comment you left where you accused him of stonewalling the 2-A Nasuverse thread didn't happen at all?

        Loading editor
    • I suppose saying someone is stone walling is a valid reason for his next reply? He definitely made a mountain out of a mile hill considering I didn't even insult him. Not sure how you can find someone saying you're a stonewall is offensive.

        Loading editor
    • As for hl3 supposedly "insulting Matt", the only comment he had that could be construed as that is the whole "Matt can't take an L", all he did besides that was accuse Matt of being the one stonewalling the 2-A thread, which isn't an insult and anyone seeing the 2-A thread can see that it's true

        Loading editor
    • I have decided to unblock him, and I'm trying to give him his final warning. But Fandom keeps eating my posts.

        Loading editor
    • FANDOM is a hungry site after all ovo

        Loading editor
    • https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:3626665

      Perhaps this may be relevant. I do hope all further replies are stymied some though. This may help with that as well.

        Loading editor
    • @PoC and jumping the gun by accusing someone of something that didn't really happen to begin with is valid in of itself? In a thread that had nothing to do with the ratings of Nasuverse?

        Loading editor
    • Aside from all these arguments, there is something I wish to point out here.

      Remember to inform members via their message walls if that you have reported them here, in case they have performed severe enough rule-violations to risk being blocked. However, this should only be used in uncertain cases, not if they have done something instantly ban worthy, or if their offenses are minor.

      This part. This was blatantly ignored in this situation. This case was not some troll or vandal with barely any edits being banned, in such a case it should, of course, be fine to ban them instantly. This was an active user with over 20k edits being banned without being given any chance to argue his report at all, despite the rule violation thread directly stating that members should be informed of being reported here, I would hardly consider such a case "instantly ban worthy" like a troll would be.

      It would be best if decisions like these weren't made so hastily and the user in question was actually allowed to argue, this applies to both this situation and any similar situations in future.

        Loading editor
    • Well, Medeus has unblocked HI3. He made a simple mistake and corrected it, so there is likely no need to spam this thread further with talk about this issue.

      I agree that HI3 has behaved in a rather aggressive manner recently though.

      Has the IP block been removed as well?

        Loading editor
    • Never mind. The IP block was not removed, but I fixed it.

        Loading editor
    • Can somebody explain over what issue(s) Matthew was reported to Fandom?

        Loading editor
    • ^ This is important, in case I need to talk with their staff about the issue.

        Loading editor
    • I don't remember him even being reported to Fandom, I think they meant to say Human Resource Group. I don't recall Matt ever doing or saying anything illegal/Fandom report worthy.

        Loading editor
    • I was told today that he was reported a while back, but not very recently, and nothing happened as a result.

        Loading editor
    • Not to butt in but it seems if you are close or friends with certain moderators on this website you are given more leniency toward punishments and are usually there to back you up when something goes down. What just happened is a prime example of that. And its rapidly becoming more transparent since I joined.

      Not to derail or anything but this could be a major issue down the line so staff would probably want to address down the line, so situations don't happen like this again. 

        Loading editor
    • Most of the people arguing against the ban, especially at the start, were non-staff...

      A lot of the time even people without friends in the staff have other users realizing if a warning is unnecessary. And a lot of the time staff get in trouble despite having friends in staff.

      I think this sort of thing inevitably happens to a minor extent, but I don't think it happened here, and I think a lot of what you would have seen could be chalked up to other factors (i.e. a user with 0 edits lashing out vs a user with 10,000 edits lashing out, we know that the latter can contribute positively to the community, and they'd have staff members defending that).

        Loading editor
    • Maybe you aren't getting my point. If the latter were someone other than PoC, A ban would not have happened and DDM wouldn't have been gung-ho is my point. All I saw were small bullshit reasonings as to why he banned him when the real reason is someone was picking with his friend.

      As someone who regularly gets into confronatations with Mods as I do even I know that BARELY warranted a warning. 

      And might I remind this type of favortism is what fueled that little incident last year but you're right im not gona argue.

      Just gonna go back in my shadows and watch the choas ensue.

      Till next time

        Loading editor
    • I mean, I agree with Judge here, and similarly with the issues that happened last year where it was pointed out that I was being punished but the other engaging with myself wasn't punished, and while I myself got a ban the other person didn't recieve any punishment, and to quote the famous words of Zach:

      "Because he's an admin"

        Loading editor
    • So your point is that PoC got banned because he said something rude to a staff member, and that staff member's friend banned him? That is more reasonable and more likely, but I don't think there's a lot we (or any community) could expect to do about that besides correct mistakes, and encourage more people to report bad behaviour than just any staff member's friend.

      Basically I think it's inevitable that people focus more on issues concerning their friends, but I think all we can do is overturn unfair bans fueled by that, and encourage non-staff to speak out when they're harassed. But it is still hard to untie things from staff's feelings, especially since this sort of thing is heavily based on opinion, with no two cases being exactly identical. I think staff are legitimately trying to do the right thing (even if some are trying harder than others), so the most we can say is "wish you guys were better at this", idk if there's a better way to address the issue.

      I don't remember which incident from last year you're talking about? But alrighty.

        Loading editor
    • Jesus Christ, no, that isn't my point at all. My point was someone got into an altercation with PoC, so DDM went Gung-Ho in his defense. How are you not understanding what I am saying? Its like we are talking about two different situations at this point because you can't understand. 

      I'm not going to explain what I said because I am both nonchalant and lazy. You'll probably be seeing me again down the line saying I told you so.

      And if you don't remeber the incident from last year, you don't want to know.

        Loading editor
    • That sounded very condescending tbh.

        Loading editor
    • Agnaa wrote:

      I think a lot of what you would have seen could be chalked up to other factors (i.e. a user with 0 edits lashing out vs a user with 10,000 edits lashing out, we know that the latter can contribute positively to the community, and they'd have staff members defending that).

      That is correct, yes. If somebody has extensively contributed in a positive manner to the community for a long time, this should preferably be weighed against the perceived offenses.

      Also, Medeus simply made a mistake here. It happens at times, and he quickly undid it afterwards. There is no greater agenda at play in this case.

        Loading editor
    • I though it took some convincing from Yobo and glass before he undid the ban. Or was it just PoC ranting in this Thread that it took long?

      Either way, I'm going honest here, things like this can greatly lower the trust people placed in the Staffs, so I hope the Staffs be extra careful when it comes to banning (I lost a lot of trust on Matt "debunking" 2-A Nasuverse already)

        Loading editor
    • The point is that it was quite easy to convince Medeus, and he is one of the staff members who make the greatest effort to be of help to the community in general. Meaning, he has a lot of work to do, likely gets distracted, and makes mistakes at times. It should not remotely be treated as some kind of malicious agenda.

      Again, the staff are just a bunch of unpaid volunteer workers who try hard to make sure that the wiki functions properly and does not collapse. That is all. We do not have some sort of professional education for handling this job, so don't expect us to be perfect when doing so.

        Loading editor
    • I can understand that.

      But I'll still say this: If things happen in a strange pattern (PoC who talk with DDM quite a lot, easily convinced DDM, Staffs making opinions on a verse they aren't knowledgeble about), expect people to suspect you guys.

        Loading editor
    • The staff are supposed to evaluate all content revision threads, including ones concerning verses that they do not know about. If they did not, the wiki would stop functioning properly. You are blaming them for trying to help out and do their jobs.

        Loading editor
    • Another funny one was me being banned and Noodles being banned because people thought I was him.

        Loading editor
    • Grats

      Can we go back on topic now? I think it's pretty clear now that H13  should be unbanned by now, just given a final warning

        Loading editor
    • Okay. Well, the issue is that nobody tends to take notice of the vast majority of cases that we handle acceptably well, just the smaller amount that we don't.

      Again, we don't have professional training for this, but we have spent a massive effort making sure that the wiki functions properly, so a bit of respect and gratitude for that wouldn't hurt.

        Loading editor
    • @Hykuu

      He has been unbanned long ago, as far as I am aware.

      We should stop arguing about this, yes.

        Loading editor
    • Agreed

        Loading editor
    • Not really reporting anything but 

      https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:3632891

      The OP is calling everyone's reasonings faulty therefore he isn't counting the votes. Is it possible to get a Mod over here. Again im not reporting anyone.

        Loading editor
    • Doesn't sound like something RVR report worthy; which if it's not RVR worthy, it shouldn't be posted here. But I'll take a look anyway.

        Loading editor
    • He's reporting it without any context, essentially Judge is using misinformation and headcanon to vote, which aren't counted if the reason is wrong.

        Loading editor
    • I said twice I wasn't reporting. I was just calling out how you called everyone else's reasonings flawed and yet the one reasoning for Ace came and you accepted it. This is clear Bias. I wasn't using headcanon, I stated why I think Natsu would win. You didn't even rebuttal to most replies, you just called them faulty.

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote:
      Doesn't sound like something RVR report worthy, but I'll take a look anyway.

      I would prefer someone else. 

        Loading editor
    • Because the vote was actually elaborated upon and used information from the profiles as opposed to headcanon. And yes, you saying a character is 50% weaker while saying they don't have access to a power they have despite it being in the profile is indeed headcanon. If you want the votes counted give a proper reason. I'm not counting "CHARACTER A BEATS CHARACTER B"

        Loading editor
    • Can I request someone else to come look at the thread. His hero is coming to his side yet again. https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:3632891

        Loading editor
    • I'm just gonna go ahead and address the real elephant in the room here. Reporting the following user for wasting staff time and throwing around petty accusations. It's worth noting this isnt the first time he's gotten in trouble for bothering staff due to him being unhappy with the response he got. https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:1620526?useskin=oasis

      https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:1676026?useskin=oasis

      https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:1675910?useskin=oasis


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

        Loading editor
    • Actually alot of people critized you for your behavior.

      Rin The Dragon Empress

      The OP deserves to be burned by both Ace and Natsu.

      Makkurona

      Wow, much headcanon. Not even taking the fact that Natsu can just eat Ace's flames, even if he doesn't, he will just tank it. Ace AP without DF power is much lower than with it. And i agree with Judge here, every arguments that have been given are just ignored so Ace can win. This is not even funny

      And that was last year LOL. I get into arguements regularly with mods on here. It's nothing new however I have been passive for a while.  

      You bringing up something from last year is just a tactic to get people to not notice your child like behavior however.

      Also: The guy who I was arguing with was banned for threatning staff and leaking out personal information about staff. He also showed favorites like you and DDM

        Loading editor
    • Those threads were to showcase your constant behavior when it comes to staff not letting you have your way, not to mention your condescending and aggressive tone.

        Loading editor
    • You were pretty aggressive yourself whats your point.

        Loading editor
    • @The Prince of Counters + @Celestial Judge, can both of you please stop fighting. I can understand some initial reports, but arguing back and forth and constantly needing to remake RVR threads have constantly been tiring. Plus, us staff do not pick favorites; we judge based on the combination of frequency of their actions and the severity. I do vaguely recall Celestial Judge has even went as far as bigoting against people with Autism; which is indeed a ban worthy offence. But yes, banning Hl3 too soon was a mishap, but it's not an excuse to behave even worse than he did. Don't think anyone needs to be banned, but this is a warning and even more so for Celestial Judge.

      This thread is only for actual rule violations and not for reporting people based on personal vendettas.

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote:

      Wall of text

      This was in the past. I have not done anything since then. You are bringing up my past to discredit me as of now. This time I requested a Mods help as which was the right thing to do. you are trying to warn me for something I did not do. How is this allowed?

        Loading editor
    • And now he made the thread to continue more drama, nice.

        Loading editor
    • I'd like to report @DDM for obvouis bias toward certain people. He should definitely be looked at more as this is his second time going Gung-Ho for PoC within the week. 

      He as gone as far as to look at my message wall and bring up an incident that happened last year with me and a certain staff memeber. A certain staff memeber who I accused of taking sides and he even ended up being in a group that was plotting against the entire website. Trust me if this was last year I would have went about this very differently.

      I'll let this be known now. I have NO friends here. I take NO sides. I have gotten into PLENTY of arguements with SEVERAL mods in the past. This is just something I do at work because it helps time go by. I have grown and and now partake in different hobbies to help deal with my anger issues. I am more mellowed compared to last year.

      I have changed. I went here to only request for a Mod to see how PoC was acting which was childish. I don't care what anyone says. Him not counting votes for petty reasons such as that should be frowned upon. And for DDM to yet again go Gung-Ho for him should be definitely investigated. 

        Loading editor
    • DDM: Can you two stop fighting here? The OP of this thread says not to bring small disputes like that to this thread anyway.

      Celestial: I'd like to report DDM for being biased and bringing up my past.

      Jesus dude chill the fuck out. You're making this a bigger issue than it has to be by lashing out at various members over minor things. None of what DDM did/said there was report-worthy, and being so trigger-happy with reporting people is disruptive to the community.

        Loading editor
    • Agnaa wrote:

      Wall of text

      I said being Biased.

      I'd like to report @DDM for obvouis bias toward certain people. He should definitely be looked at more as this is his second time going Gung-Ho for PoC within the week. 

      Stop being fucking biased then. I swear to God you internet warriors love cussing and putting this fucking invisible cape on over the internet, I would fucking paypal some of you pussys to say this bold shit in real life. Report me I don't give a fuck I'm done. I tried doing shit the right way and still was fucking critized about it because they're all BB.

        Loading editor
    • I agree that Medeus has not done anything wrong here. He is just trying to help out and calm things down.

      Speaking of which, I would appreciate if everybody here could calm down as well. It is good if Celestial Judge has done so over the years, as he stated, but this discussion is still getting too agitated and paranoid, and nothing report-worthy seems to have happened in the first place.

        Loading editor
    • Bad timing

        Loading editor
    • @Celestial Judge

      We are not Internet warriors, nor are we cussing. We are just trying to calm down a situation that has gone out of hand over trivial issues. That is all. Again, calm down, and stop being paranoid and insulting others here over nothing. Consider this as a warning, given that you went over the line here.

        Loading editor
    • @Antvasima

      We've done this more than enough times Im well aware and could give a fucks less I tried doing it the right way. It's going to be the last time aswell. Anytime and everytime I feel insulted Im going Gung-Ho. I tried doing the right thing.

        Loading editor
    • It is good if you try to behave well, but I don't get why you are so upset. It isn't like we have behaved in a bad manner towards you.

        Loading editor
    • Just... stop arguing here and if you wanna continue, do it on somebody's Message Wall.

      People who don't know about the drama would more likely judge the more aggressive one as the "bad guy"

        Loading editor
    • Agreed. Let's drop this issue here. You can continue in a thread on my message wall if you wish.

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote:
      It is good if you try to behave well, but I don't get why you are so upset. It isn't like we have behaved in a bad manner towards you.

      I literally calmed myself down and simply requested someone to stop PoC from being childish in his thread. All the votes for a certain character he called faulty and did not even count because they were "too short". Yet everyone was saying the samething thus making the arguement somewhat valid.

      He then proceeded to "So you can either debate properly or leave" twice. 

      To me, this is an insult, I do have anger issues so to others it may not be as disrespectful. So I was already starting to get heated at that point. The old me would've did something ban worthy, however, I came here and requested a Mod to see what he was doing. I am not close to anyone on this website other than my younger cousin and the person who showed me the website so I thought this would be the quickest way to get someone's attention. 

      @DDM Once again came to @PoC defense not even acknoledging the way @PoC was acting

      Two people had already critized him on his behavior 

      Then to come here and for someone to bring up year old history about me and a staff memeber WHO LITERALLY PLOTTED AGAINST THE WIKI AND LEAKED INFORMATION. 

      Seriously?

      Do you know what its like to try and do the right thing and still get critized? Its infuriating.

      I dislike many people on this website but I would never go out of my way to do something that fucking evil.

        Loading editor
    • A blowout like that isn't ban worthy? I mean did call us homophobic slurs.

        Loading editor
    • I'll honestly take that ban cause im not going to apologize for saying it to them. However If I offended any one who is homosexual I did not mean it in that context and I do apologize. 

        Loading editor
    • @The Prince of Counters

      He hasn't called us homophobic slurs. Let's not be oversensitive here.

      @Celestial Judge

      You are greatly overreacting, and this is the wrong place to blow off steam. Take it to my message wall if you need to talk.

        Loading editor
    • I don't know how DDM telling both of you to stop fighting here is defending PoC. And I fail to see how doing that, or bringing up something you said a year ago, is "that fucking evil".

      But @PoC You seriously need to stop fueling this situation. From unjustified reports, unnecessary snide jabs, and straight up lying, your behaviour has gone beyond what's acceptable.

        Loading editor
    • Zark2099
      Zark2099 removed this reply because:
      Derailing
      06:58, October 23, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • Zark2099
      Zark2099 removed this reply because:
      Derailing
      06:58, October 23, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • People, is having the last word that important? Comments beyond this point will be deleted.

        Loading editor
    • I have to say, I find Celestial's recent posts on this thread to be extremely concerning as well.

      It's definitely deserving of an official warning.

        Loading editor
    • Agnaa is most likely correct. And you know as well as I do that the "bb" term was not intended in a homophobic context. Let's try to not overreact please.

      Anyway, we will continue the discussion here:

      https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:3633339

      @Damage3245

      I am fine with if somebody gives him an official warning, but he seems mentally unstable for the moment, so I do not think that we should go further than that.

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima
      Antvasima removed this reply because:
      06:37, October 23, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • Jesus, "BB" is such an outdated and childish term... I mean I suppose it is homophobic, but like, it was not used in that intent. Just don't use it unless you want FANDOM on your tail, because it is basically the frick equivalent of "F******"

        Loading editor
    • Should I start deleting any unnecessarily hostile or disruptive posts above?

        Loading editor
    • Zark2099
      Zark2099 removed this reply because:
      Derailing
      06:54, October 23, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • Zark2099
      Zark2099 removed this reply because:
      Derailing
      06:55, October 23, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • Zark2099
      Zark2099 removed this reply because:
      Derailing
      06:54, October 23, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • Zark2099
      Zark2099 removed this reply because:
      Derailing
      06:54, October 23, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • Zark2099
      Zark2099 removed this reply because:
      Derailing
      06:54, October 23, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • Zark2099
      Zark2099 removed this reply because:
      Derailing
      06:53, October 23, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • Zark2099
      Zark2099 removed this reply because:
      Derailing
      06:53, October 23, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • Antvasima wrote:

      Should I start deleting any unnecessarily hostile or disruptive posts above?

      Please do.

        Loading editor
    • Jesus fucking Christ I'll remove the posts myself. Y'all need to chill

        Loading editor
    • Zark2099
      Zark2099 removed this reply because:
      Derailing
      06:56, October 23, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • Can you lovely gentlemen use the message walls for discusssing the ethics of using the "BB" term and not give FANDOM a heart attack?

        Loading editor
    • Anyhow, we can just give warnings to both, and if it escalates further from there we can give like, a month long ban, in my opinion.

      Nothing here shows the users had malice or an intent for disruption, and just a genuine unacquantance of debate ethics, or even communication ethics, as such a severe warning may suffice.

        Loading editor
    • Yes, that seems fine. Feel free to give a warning to each of them.

        Loading editor
    • What even is this thread

        Loading editor
    • Some random dude just came up after calling me an asshole after efficient accused of bad behavior wish is a lie, he than proceeded to erase both of my comments and everything looks out of context making me look bad for no reason at all.

      And all of this was base on suspicions on me acting like I have a deplorable attitude.

      Than I proceed to say that I give up on the thread because some people where using crass language like "vague-ass" and acting extremely hostile against me for no reason at all.

      So I ended my message by saying do not bother messaging I'm not coming back on that thread.

      What happens? Effecient is lying about my attitude about it for no reason on the thread I call him out on this and than he decided to make it private after pulling the trigger.

      And than one other dude comes and keeps lying about how I was acting like an asshole and is still trying to justify it.

      I apologize if my messages intentions were misunderstood but none of the treatments I received is fair.

        Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • GojiBoyForever wrote: Here is context

      https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:3327294

      Dosent change the fact that you guys are trying to get away with calling me an asshole for no reason at all.

      Also why can't I post screen shots?

        Loading editor
    • 1. ?

      2. Why can't you?

        Loading editor
    • Thread here: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:3327294?useskin=oasis#62

      I'm the guy he was talking about.

      The proof is there for all to see, him posting the scans just proves our point. My address towards it was probably nore hostile than it needed to be and I'll take full responsibility for that.

      To summarize: Crow was arguing that 2019 Genie should be 3-A for being "the strongest in the universe". Everyone else said no. He kept repeating the argument and people got frustrated (IE. The vague ass comment). Eventually he storms off in a huff and Ef deletes his last two posts to keep things from getting more aggressive. Violet sympathizes with crow, Goji abd I are like "not really" and in the exchange I call Crow an asshole. Crow comes back, argument happens, he reports me. You can see the comments Ef removed in the thread. Click to enlarge. You can decide who was right or if anyone should get warned.

        Loading editor
    • GojiBoyForever wrote: 1. ?

      2. Why can't you?

      The other guy straight up said I was an asshole and is trying to justify his argument, that's why I'm getting really mad I did nothing wrong the only "bad" thing was writting blah blah blah instead of etc and that's it.

      But if you read the thread you can see other being hostile to me and efficient doing nothing about and than I'm suddenly the bad guy for no reason???

      Plus some random dude comes when everything is done and calls me an asshole behind my back for no reasons when he wasn't even here to begin with, receiving kudos for no reason.

      Everything is horrible out of context.

      2.its saying I don't have the permission to post them don't know why.

        Loading editor
    • I don't think any warnings have to be made about this, let's just calm down okay guys, there's no need to keep going back in forth with each other in, take it to a wall or other places to set aside your problems and diferences

        Loading editor
    • I did took it to Efficient wall about it and told him to do something about the guy that insulted me, what does he do?


      He go gives the guy a kudo and no warning, how is that fair???

        Loading editor
    • Ashen, calm down. Take a step back, take a deep breath. It's done. Let the RVT sort it out.

        Loading editor
    • Staff aren't meant to be reported here. Read the thread.

      "If there are genuine serious problems with the behaviour of certain staff members, do not cause drama by extensively arguing about it here, but rather contact the Human Resources Group."

      And stop this arguing here, this isn't the place for that.

        Loading editor
    • This is really not that big a deal. Being called an asshole when you were admittedly being aggressive is pretty minor. It isn't "behind your back" as you're literally in that thread, and you being the instigator of hostilities would serve as additional mitigation against a light insult. It's not polite, but not really worth making a big deal over. I'd advise you just take a break for a while, and we can all move past this.

        Loading editor
    • Look all I ask is for an apology.

      But OK I'll leave the RVT alone, thank you for your time.

        Loading editor
    • AshenCrow777 wrote:

      2.its saying I don't have the permission to post them don't know why.

      The filename's probably already used by an image on the site.

      Try renaming the screenshot before you upload it.

        Loading editor
    • I saw the screenshots on the thread, and in my opinion there was no reason to remove them. The most I got from those comments was some amount of dissatisfaction and frustration, but none of it was bad enought to warrant deletion

        Loading editor
    • Andytrenom wrote: I saw the screenshots on the thread, and in my opinion there was no reason to remove them. The most I got from those comments was some amount of dissatisfaction and frustration, but none of it was bad enought to warrant deletion

      Yeah, but it wasn't an admin this time.that removed the thread. It was the OP themselves, due to "spam"

        Loading editor
    • Well, sometimes staff members make the wrong decision when trying to calm down a situation, and delete posts unnecessarily, but there is no ill will behind it.

      Anyway, is somebody willing to investigate those suspected sockpuppet links?

        Loading editor
    • Already banned them, pretty clear. All on the same thread made around the same time on the same day with the same general opinion.

        Loading editor
    • Might wanna fix your message Wok

        Loading editor
    • Thank you for helping out.

        Loading editor
    • He is just joking around.

        Loading editor
    • ouch..^

        Loading editor
    • It is probably enough to give him a warning to stop derailing any more threads with nonsense. If he continues to be a problem, that is another issue.

        Loading editor
    • I have had to deal with a relentlessly unreasonable and disrespectful member here, and I am very tired and overworked in general:

      https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:3638262#75

      I would appreciate if some other staff members could help out and possibly give a warning. Thank you.

        Loading editor
    • Idk, it seems like you both were kinda in the wrong here. JJ probably needs to be told to cool off though. He didn't seem unreasonable and just came off as very annoyed his points weren't being considered seriously.

        Loading editor
    • Well, I am just tired and overworked, and cannot overexert my mind to extremes by handling too many tasks at once for prolonged periods of time. I did consider his points, but that does not mean that I accept them, given that the validations for such enormous upgrades were not remotely reliable enough.

        Loading editor
    • I'm not trying to be a dick.

      I'm just upset that my opinions aren't being treated as valid even though I have the same level of knowledge as everyone else on the thread in question.

        Loading editor
    • That may very well be, but this isn't just about knowledge regarding the source material. It is about trying to maintain some measure of critical standards.

        Loading editor
    • It isn't about knowledge, it is about reliability and trust that are in question here, and you can see that one may trust those who have extensively worked for the wiki over, let's say, a new account.

      No one ever had a problem over you not being "smart" or "important" enough. It's like, getting a second opinion

        Loading editor
    • The problem I have is the standards seem very random.

      Mewtwo gets upgraded to 4-A based on one feat, and yet Kung Fu Panda characters with 5 Tier 4 and above feats don't?

      I don't get that.

        Loading editor
    • Well, if there were to be a proper discussion about the statistics amongst those knowledgeable on the matter that wouldn't be derailed by any sort of aggression, then maybe we can come to a mutual level of understanding regarding the changes you've proposed. That was what was being proposed there.

      Anyhow if you want to discuss this further, move it to my message wall I suppose

        Loading editor
    • If Mewtwo has one 4-A feat and only ever struggles against other god-tiers of the verse, while Kung Fu Pands has 5 tier 4 and above feats, with one High 3-A feat, yet they face dozens of tier 8 threats that they can't overcome through sheer strength, the former does seem more reliable than the latter.

      Granted, this may not exactly represent the situation since I don't quite know either verse. But simply "One 4-A feat, five tier 4 and above feats" isn't enough to say which of those is more consistent.

        Loading editor
    • Alright, sorry for clogging this thread.

        Loading editor
    • JJSliderman wrote: The problem I have is the standards seem very random.

      Mewtwo gets upgraded to 4-A based on one feat, and yet Kung Fu Panda characters with 5 Tier 4 and above feats don't?

      I don't get that.

      Mewtwo also has an entirely different form that only appears once that got him to 4-A. Don't false-equivalency.

        Loading editor
    • Is there a staff warning needed for this matter, for record-keeping sake, or is it fine as it is?

        Loading editor
    • I think that this seems fine as it is.

        Loading editor
    • Seems resolved to me tbh.

        Loading editor
    • Celestial Judge is harbouring this weird anti-staff mentality where he pointlessly accuses staff for being biased, alongside being rude himself. Another example here (Another thing to note, I legit just dropped by the thread with little to no context of what was going on, only to receive this.) Upon general remarks on his behaviour as well, He shows this bizarre confidence and makes these pointless challenges for other staff to report him.

      I legitimately could care less, but given he was literally warned less than a week ago, and now thinks he's immune or whatever, I think some action is to be in place.

        Loading editor
    • Okay. A strict warning seems in place then.

        Loading editor
    • I mean, this'll be his third warning, and in the previous official warning I gave him, I made it a point for it to be the final warning of sorts.

      I don't think another warning will suffice...

        Loading editor
    • im not a staff...but maybe a 3 day-week block might do?

        Loading editor
    • Nah a month might suffice here.

        Loading editor
    • I only made a slight glance into the threads but I don't see anything ban or block worthy though his attitude is uncalled for and could lead to something reportable. I don't think he should get banned or blocked just yet but he will likely do something to grant him a ban or block in the future if this keeps up. I would ignore him for now but he is on thin ice.

        Loading editor
    • He was already on thin ice, and I don't think calling why a certain person was eligible to be staff for no reason, and openly challenging others to block him, literally less than a week before he was warned about these offenses, doesn't deserve a ban.

      But oh well, if there is to be given a warning, I'm afraid I can't do it in an unbiased or fair way, so I'd prefer if someone else were to do so

        Loading editor
    • It just seems like he has a severe case of a crappy attitude in my eyes but if I ran things (god forbid), someone asking for a block or ban would get exactly that. I would just keep watch on him for now.

        Loading editor
    • well...i dont have the patience to read all of the wiki rules pages, however, most wikis do have rules against insulting staff...so, use that if you have it

        Loading editor
    • I would agree with a ban or block if he straight up insulted staff (as in calling them swear words or harsh name calling) but if it's minor accusations like thinking staff is biased for or against something then I don't believe that is ban or block worthy since everyone including staff does that. 

        Loading editor
    • You were literally cherry picking in your revision I can't believe they made you a staff member.
      It's okay ill just keep calling you out, im pretty sure you have sockpuppets somewhere to. I don't have proof I just know. A lot of your actions are very spiteful. I bet you are in a small group with some of the people here on the wiki and talk about downgrading verses. I bet you guys have sockpuppets on stand by as well.

      No I don't have proof and of course you will deny it, but just know, I know.

      I'm well aware I could be I could care less, like I said above I can see right through him, Also how did you even find this? Were you just bored and looked at my recent activity? Or did you and Damage talk in a discord about me. Regardless, again I don't care.

      Sockpuppets, staff conspiracy, pointless spite and stalking. Again, I don't think these are minor accusations in the slightest...

        Loading editor
    • Okay, so is a 1 month ban appropriate, and if so, what should the banning reason say?

        Loading editor
    • @Zark2099

      Those are pretty minor and common accusations on this wiki except for the "stalking" one since he probably just think everybody watches him because he was reported before rather than people are actually stalking him. I have seen similiar accusations done staff side towards regular users but it is treated as minor because it was understood that it's just petty banter. I'm not trying to call out staff or anything like that, I'm trying to highlight how minor these accusations are.

        Loading editor
    • insulting staff, thats actually against the rules on a lot of wikis

        Loading editor
    • I think a slight bit more input from other members may be helpful, to avoid accusations of power misuse to fly around

      Harassing staff, General Discourtesy seems like an appropriate reason

        Loading editor
    • Zark's suggestion seems good enough to me. Celestial is clearly not interested in being respectful towards other people, especially staff members.

        Loading editor
    • Dienomite22 wrote: Textwall

      I swear, I have yet to see a single such accusation fly where literally everyone was cool with it, even in staff discussions, where in this thread itself, DDM was chastized for doing such.

      Also, just because petty banter is petty banter, doesn't mean it isn't rude and disruptive.

        Loading editor
    • It's okay ill just keep calling you out, im pretty sure you have sockpuppets somewhere to. I don't have proof I just know.

      No I don't have proof and of course you will deny it, but just know, I know.

      3BB4C07F-C516-4C49-9FE2-8315844FE7B1
        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote: Okay, so is a 1 month ban appropriate, and if so, what should the banning reason say?

      ^

        Loading editor
    • Zark2099 wrote: I think a slight bit more input from other members may be helpful, to avoid accusations of power misuse to fly around. Personally I agree with a month long ban

      Harassing staff, General Discourtesy seems like an appropriate reason

        Loading editor
    • Okay. Sorry about being a bit strayminded.

        Loading editor
    • @Zark2099

      I could provide example of these accusations flying but I don't want to start unnessary drama, for the sake of peace all I have is my word on this.

      I don't think much of petty banter becuase I've seen so much of it on verses boards and sites but I guess that doesn't mean others doesn't think of it the same way also so it could just be me. I just don't want this to lead to people getting banned for having a snarky attitude or making slightly rude comments. I've seen Celestial's past reported comments and find those block or banned worthy but not this. 

        Loading editor
    • I suppose that is a valid point.

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote:

      Antvasima wrote: Okay, so is a 1 month ban appropriate, and if so, what should the banning reason say?

      ^

      I mean, he just flat out just accused someone of breaking TOS and then immediately said he had no evidence and he just knew.

      It seems he needs a bit of time get out of that mind set of just flagrantly accusing people of stuff like that.

      So 2 weeks to a Month might be best.

        Loading editor
    • Dienomite22 wrote: Textwall

      Snarky comments don't include going on a tangent in a general discussion and accusing the other person of breaking rules, calling them a hypocrite, and using ad hominem constantly to counter legit CRT discussions.

      Also, a factor that literally 5 DAYS ago he was given a warning to stop this behaviour, and he didn't heed to it, speaks for itself.

        Loading editor
    • Udlmaster wrote:
      Antvasima wrote:

      Antvasima wrote: Okay, so is a 1 month ban appropriate, and if so, what should the banning reason say?

      ^
      I mean, he just flat out just accused someone of breaking TOS and then immediately said he had no evidence and he just knew.

      It seems he needs a bit of time get out of that mind set of just flagrantly accusing people of stuff like that.

      So 2 weeks to a Month might be best.

      ^

        Loading editor
    • I think it's less the comments themselves and more that he's already been warned several times and is clearly not improving. I can slap on 3 weeks if we want to hit the median.

        Loading editor
    • I can agree to Wok's suggestion

        Loading editor
    • Zark2099 wrote: snip

      I honestly see nothing report worthy besides derailing from the sound of it. He's just being an a hole. I don't mind him getting ban or blocked for a couple of weeks to a month for derailing and his attitude though.

        Loading editor
    • Agreed.

        Loading editor
    • Wokistan's suggestion is fine.

        Loading editor
    • Wokistan wrote: I think it's less the comments themselves and more that he's already been warned several times and is clearly not improving. I can slap on 3 weeks if we want to hit the median.

      That seems fine.

        Loading editor
    • Normally I would be fine with such language if it wasn't overdone, but Ted seems problematic in general, almost like he's trying to get in trouble. Just my interpretation, though.

        Loading editor
    • That entire phrase is a meme

      I blocked Celestial Judge

        Loading editor
    • Eh, I kinda instructed the user to avoid such language in the future. Nothing severe IMO, but again, FANDOM can be quick to pull the trigger who knows.

        Loading editor
    • I mean, he even censored "fuck" out. That's the only part that's really considered a swear and fandom doesn't care that much about it, but eh.

        Loading editor
    • BlitzSevenTeen is a sock puppet of the banned user ZaStando27.

      He’s posted pages on the CSAP Wiki arguing for Neoplatonism being 1-A and wanks Sonic to being that high, which are key things that ZaStando believes in.

      Additionally, I asked him there if he was ZaStando and he responded by removing the thread and saying “cringe.” This is pretty much a dead giveaway.

        Loading editor
    • Reporting Alexcar3000 over a series of disputes. I'll TL;DR the situation as I understand it here, as of writing this I've already warned Alexcar that the next action of direct harassment will result in a short ban (probably three days if I have my way).

      First action was Alexcar generally just being disruptive in a Discord chat. Has no correlation here, obviously, so I just muted him for a while. He then sent a message boiling down to "wtf what did I do". I explained the situation to him to find out that he had blocked me- he responded to the presumed sent message with "lol", as in, he blocked the chance for an explanation. I kicked him from the server for awhile until he calmed down and moved on.

      Following this I found when I looked at the wiki again that I had a message from Alexcar, here. Nothing aggressive, just "lol you forgot". I closed the thread after explaining that when he actually wished to talk he was free to do so. He then messaged again with obviously increased aggressiveness and several false claims about myself. I advised him to back off and take a break, and that this was now an official warning in regards to harassment. 

      His final message resulted in me mentioning it to others, including Wok who stepped in while I was working on another endeavor. The post itself continues to be overly aggressive for effectively no reason other than to be aggressive and snide. A lot of it is just outright insults. Another message and I'm banning the dude for three days, he's just being overly aggressive for no reason and is ignoring any communication from any other party. 

        Loading editor
    • I don't see how this is harassment, and while Alex talks in a weird way, he was clearly willing to discuss and resolve things, which makes it look like a bad move to just constantly close the threads and pass it off as him being increasingly aggressive

      The last message really makes it seem everything was just a failure in communication and different opinions as to what aggressiveness is than Alex being genuinely malicious

        Loading editor
    • From the rest of the messages on your message wall thread it seems like you two have kinda come to a conclusion.

      Regardless, I am strongly against a 3 day ban for someone making one thread on your message wall (after you'd told him to stop messaging you, I know he made two threads before that) and being somewhat confrontational.

        Loading editor
    • I mean. The dude implied I was using mod powers to mute him in a seemingly discriminatory way and when I told him to stop he just started implying I was afraid of him. He wasn't exactly the nicest gent. Since he has stopped as of now I'm dropping it, but it was clearly aggressive in nature. I interpret his last message as realizing what I've been talking about, hence closing the thread. The issue is fine now.

      also to be fair he was told multiple times during the last thread to go take a break so I'm counting that as multiple times, just in one thread

      Either way, situation defused, dude got a warning and that's it.

        Loading editor
    • I have blocked BlitzSevenTeen, seemed pretty obvious he was ZaStando27 or EarthyBoy. The 1-A Sonic stuff and "Vendetta" against ShadowWarrior seemed to indicate this. As for Celestial Judge, I think a three week block seemed fine for now as Wokistan took care of it. And lastly, about Ted Ed. I did suspect him/her of being a sock of Mikoto Misaka for multiple indications which I will list below.

      Ted Ed does comment on the exact same verses as Mikoto and her numerous socks have; this includes Fire Emblem (Specifically trying to upgrade Fire Emblem 6/7 to 4-A via "Stars shining midday." and the Tokyo Mirage Sessions familiarity similar to this sock), Phoenix Wright, Various SNK verses such as King of Fighters, interested in Street Fighter Vs King of Fighters, has a tendency to downplay random characters or verses without context for the sake of spite. Example was trying to make everyone in Mortal Kombat 9-C because "They die from bullets" and she did this shortly after Ryu was losing to Liu Kang a while back. He/she also randomly says stuff like "9-B fodder because people die from nukes" without factual context. Also has a tenancy to make stomp threads (Second also has a slur word in the title that Fandom considers ban worthy). All of these seem like indications of her being her which several other staff members have agreed with me.

      As for Alexcar, I'm neutral; but I suppose Andy is making sense for how to deal with him.

        Loading editor
    • Judge already got blocked didn't he?

        Loading editor
    • Yes, Wokistan blocked him for three weeks due to his multiple warnings and continuous aggression.

        Loading editor
    • Fandom did not consider the b-word to be banworthy, just rude, when I asked them about it recently, which is why I removed it from the word filter after Cal asked me to.

      That said, I also think that it seems very likely that Ted Ed is Mikoto.

        Loading editor
    • If you guys are still indecisive about Ted Ed and what to do with this user, let me give you my input. You guys said that Misaka made another sock that went by Hans right? Well I talked to Hans on another site and he/she wanted me to make a match up of Antman vs Thanos. Here is the thread for that. And Ted Ed also responded soon after on that vs thread I have made for him/her as shown here. Not only this Ted Ed also advocated that Antman would win, something that Hans has been shown hinting for in my first link.

        Loading editor
    • So are the rest of you fine with if Medeus bans Ted Ed?

        Loading editor
    • Obviously not my decision to make, but with all the evidence in mind I think it's quite clear. Ted Ed being so quickly involved with and passionate about just about every CRT that Misaka was before being blocked makes things quite painfully clear.

        Loading editor
    • Okay.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah I'd say it's fine. 

        Loading editor
    • Okay. Feel free to ban him/her then.

        Loading editor
    • As another thing that we can't really take action against- a sign of my not-staff status has appeared and there's a troll currently roaming pretending to be me on Discord, dunno who it is but if people need to confirm that's not me my own Discord is pretty public. So if you get a random dude with the name "Mr. Bambu" on Discord, that ain't me. 

        Loading editor
    • Okay. You should mention this at the top of your profile page and message wall note. That is what I do.

        Loading editor
    • I have blocked Ted Ed most people seemed to agree with the consensus.

        Loading editor
    • Okay. Thanks.

        Loading editor
    • This doesn't feel report worthy.

        Loading editor
    •  I agree with goji

        Loading editor
    • agreed

        Loading editor
    • Well, I have also seen him do so, and although it obviously isn't ban-worthy, it is still inappropriate.

        Loading editor
    • warn maybe?

        Loading editor
    • Not warn exactly, just instruct him that it is inappropriate and needs to stop.

        Loading editor
    • I left Stalker Maggot a minor note, I do agree that he's harmless, but messaged him anyway.

        Loading editor
    • My apologies. I misremembered. I think it was Gewsbumpz who I saw advertising his versus threads in an unrelated discussion. I hope that this has not caused any problems.

        Loading editor
    • Alright, I don’t feel the best about being the one to do it, but I’m making a report regarding Firephoenixearl (I apologize in advance for such a long post).

      Earl has been banned numerous times for various reasons, but each of these have been partial or temporary in the hopes that he will be able to shape up. In this one, for example, Fire was reported for having given doctored scans. The ultimate verdict was that since the doctored scans could have been a accident, it wasn’t necessarily ban worthy as long as Earl responded to explain himself. His only response was “Hmm, im sorry but to my knowledge i haven't been breaking any rules (or at least i don't think i am). I would like to at least know which rule of the wiki says "fire has done something bad".” Despite the fact no real response to the issues was brought up, including the additional issues of toxicity, downplay, and wank, it was decided we should be lenient since Earl had become slightly better since his previous ban was lifted.

      Now, I hate to be the one to say this, but it’s time to face the music. It’s been over a year since the report was made, and no change in behavior can be noted, only a change in the verses this applied to. After people looked over the profiles in GetBackers after their initial creation and looked over the arguments about their powers, it was stated that most of the things on profiles and used as arguments were heavily out of context or simply wank, for example.

      This is a a example of the average thread since the match ban Earl was subjected to was lifted. The thread is full of toxicity and problems in general, but to name just one is the argument made by Earl that Limbo’s data powers will bypass Reinhard’s defenses and abilities, despite the difference in their potency of his powers and the mechanics of his abilities, signifying extreme bias.

      This is a thread one month later, with The Operator vs Yhwach. Here, it was argued that Limbo could not be reached by Yhwach despite his teleportation, and that he lacked any sort of method to break things that aren’t supernatural, and that the Almighty would fail because defeating the Warframes is impossible for anyone to do in any capacity.

      This thread is a more recent example of similar wank and toxicity, arguing for Rakudai to have higher-D hax based on nonstandard dimensions and using it as a argument to bypass Accelerator’s powers.

      Even more recently this thread surfaced. Here, Earl explicitly stated that they were not willing accept any verdict except the one they wanted and explicitly would not drop the argument unless what they wanted to change was changed, effectively stonewalling the entire argument.

      I understand there are numerous people who will inevitably feel that this report is made out of bias. For these reasons, I have compiled a list of additional threads that can be looked at for context and greater understanding of the issues at hand (as well as because of the sheer amount of info that needs to be looked over.)

      To summarize, I feel that the wiki should at least consider giving more serious punishment for Earl due to the reasons stated above on the grounds of extreme bias, wank, downplay, and general toxicity and rudeness.

        Loading editor
    • Agreed with Yobo

        Loading editor
    • I agreed with a ban back then and I still agree now. Simply banning him from commenting on Medaka's Bix did nothing but redirect the problem. It did not solve it.

        Loading editor
    • TBF he also was responsible for the ridiculous multipliers on ikki's profile originally. Beyond that? He can be very very stubborn other then that he seems fine.

        Loading editor
    • While I've had a lot of issues in my discussions with Earl, overall I'm relatively neutral. But I don't think there was much of an issue with this thread. Katanagatari's abilities were played up a fair bit, and eventually the thread agreed to his downgrades (and more).

      ALSO, I never saw him say he "would not drop the argument unless what they wanted to change was changed", and I don't quite know if something like that is report-worthy? I've had a similar attitude against things that Earl has argued before (like Low 2-C Medaka Box).

        Loading editor
    • While that’s true, it is a bit of a argument cause when it’s explicitly argued and the person in question refuses to drop certain things. Though I suppose there is a level of subjectivity in each offense.

        Loading editor
    • There's no issue with continuing to argue when something hasn't been resolved. Multiple members leaned to agreeing with Earl, with two members providing strong opposition. There is no issue with Earl continuing to argue in a situation like that.

      However, if there was unanimous disagreement and the thread had been closed, yet he continued, that's when it starts becoming a reportable offense.

        Loading editor
    • Ok (kind of a late response but whatever) Ant. The thread wasn't unrelated because it heavily involved a Goosebumps character and was literally in the tags, and nearly every single thread I advertised on there WAS ALSO involved in Goosebumps (if you can't tell, they are connected to the same thing) unlike what Stalker Maggot advertised. For the thread you say (the large size one, which is also the one with the Goosebumps character), I don't understand why its unrelated outside of the minor fact that it involved large size. I don't want to come off as aggressive or anything, but it comes off as illogical.

        Loading editor
    • Agnaa wrote: There's no issue with continuing to argue when something hasn't been resolved. Multiple members leaned to agreeing with Earl, with two members providing strong opposition. There is no issue with Earl continuing to argue in a situation like that.

      However, if there was unanimous disagreement and the thread had been closed, yet he continued, that's when it starts becoming a reportable offense.

      I’ll have to take your word for it I think we need to make some of these standards more clear.

        Loading editor
    • Hmm.

        Loading editor
    • Gewsbumpz dude wrote:
      Ok (kind of a late response but whatever) Ant. The thread wasn't unrelated because it heavily involved a Goosebumps character and was literally in the tags, and nearly every single thread I advertised on there WAS ALSO involved in Goosebumps (if you can't tell, they are connected to the same thing) unlike what Stalker Maggot advertised. For the thread you say (the large size one, which is also the one with the Goosebumps character), I don't understand why its unrelated outside of the minor fact that it involved large size. I don't want to come off as aggressive or anything, but it comes off as illogical.

      It wasnt unrelated but it was still derailing

      Though, its a minor issue and not really ban worthy

        Loading editor
    • Well Ant probably should have worded his little message better, I just felt like I had to clarify it all

        Loading editor
    • Agnaa wrote:
      While I've had a lot of issues in my discussions with Earl, overall I'm relatively neutral. But I don't think there was much of an issue with this thread. Katanagatari's abilities were played up a fair bit, and eventually the thread agreed to his downgrades (and more).

      ALSO, I never saw him say he "would not drop the argument unless what they wanted to change was changed", and I don't quite know if something like that is report-worthy? I've had a similar attitude against things that Earl has argued before (like Low 2-C Medaka Box).

      Slightly unrelated, but was Earl behind the Monogatari profils as well? (Katanagatari and it are by the same author). As a fan of the series I noticed some minor exaggerated things about Shinobu's page.

        Loading editor
    • Matthew Schroeder wrote:

      Slightly unrelated, but was Earl behind the Monogatari profils as well? (Katanagatari and it are by the same author). As a fan of the series I noticed some minor exaggerated things about Shinobu's page.

      No. BLANK originally created the pages for Koyomi and Shinobu, and I've updated them (and created the rest of the profiles) since. Please direct concerns about it to my message wall/discord.

        Loading editor
    • Ok, thank you. Reached you out there.

        Loading editor
    • I personallly haven't noticed any bad behaviour from Earl recently, and think that he seems mostly harmless, but then again, I do not monitor the versus thread discussions.

      I do not think that he has any ill intent though. At worst he can be forbidden from participating in certain types of versus discussion threads.

        Loading editor
    • Earl shouldn't be banned. I say this acknowledging that he, like others, is on the list of users we could be overly lenient towards. I say this acknowledging that Earl still takes part in some pretty big wanking issues with verses he is involved with. 

      With those two acknowledgements aside, the guy is generally productive and hasn't had any truly major issue since the last time he was on the slate for banning. His behavior hasn't improved much, but it clearly has improved enough that someone like Ant, who watches the wiki like a hawk, hasn't noticed any major controversy that would display ill intent. Even taking into account versus threads, which are known to have these issues with practically anyone, Earl isn't doing anything notably wrong. Stacking up small issues to equal a death sentence seems a bit odd.

      Generally Earl just wants his characters to be seen as strong, it's something many users on this wiki are guilty of. He's more brazen about it, but imo he's fine to keep for now. Same as before, any major slip up and he should be banned- but major slip ups haven't happened, just annoyances. If we banned people for being annoying we'd have an empty wiki. 

        Loading editor
    • I agree with Mr. Bambu. Still, it might be good if you or some other staff member investigates the linked versus threads a bit. They might warrant an instruction/light warning to Earl, so he tries to avoid being a problem in the future.

        Loading editor
    • I match Ant's thoughts on the issue.

        Loading editor
    • Should I notify Earl or has someone else already done so?

        Loading editor
    • While I do agree with what Bambu said, I never specified banning him kek. I’d just like it if some punishment was looked at or at least discussed. It doesn’t have to be a ban.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah I felt that way too but I didn't wanna accuse someone without evidence.

        Loading editor
    • @Yobo

      Well, first somebody in the staff needs to investigate a bit, and then determine whether or not an instruction/warning is necessary.

        Loading editor
    • “Remember to inform members via their message walls if that you have reported them here, in case they have performed severe enough rule-violations to risk being blocked. However, this should only be used in uncertain cases, not if they have done something instantly ban worthy, or if their offenses are minor.” I am referring to the, which says it should be done in uncertain cases.

      Personally on the issue I support Earl receiving another versus thread ban.

        Loading editor
    • Kind of wish someone would have at least informed me on this but eh. Anyway on to the points:

      1. "Doctored scans". That was just people assuming i did that. 

      Well it's still possible that he simply took an edited scan and took it as real instead of actively trying to lie. Not likely, but possible.

      This is what saikou said in my defense (which is the truth btw, back then i had used a scan from a previous giorno CRT), but the answer to that wasn't even a fact:

      Knowing Fire I doubt that.

      So basically it was just assumed i edited that myself via majority vote. Not only was this before my first match ban but it's also still accusing me on what people think is the truth.

      2. About GetBackers, no one said that. It was just Matthew and a couple of other people that assumed that the profiles were likely very wanked cus i was the creator, and the only "problems" that were found were very VERY minor stuff (like forming knives from your blood not being body control). Up to this day nothing has been really debunked about the series there have been questions about the "high end 2-B or baseline 2-A" tier, which wasn't even in the original profiles to begin with. Also i wasn't even the main man behind the hax on their profile, i need to remind people everytime that i wasn't alone creating these profiles. 

      3. You're taking the match out of context. The difference in potency literally does not apply there was never an argument of Limbo bypassing Reinhard's 1-A stuff.

      4. Operator couldn't be reached because Yhwach would lack knowledge. And the warframes "wouldn't be broken by anything in canon". Again idk if you have first hand experience in these fights or if you're just giving it a quick skim, but you're forgetting very important context. As you're making my arguments sound NLF with the little bits you're posting.

      5. That thread, oof. First of all that isn't even a versus thread, it's a fun and games board. And second of all being a fun and games board, i don't have to stick to what's on the profiles, im not arguing fights here, just told another member that "yes there are higher D stuff in Rakudai" and even gave the description of the ability. I don't see why you're using this considering to my knowledge you haven't read the untranslated novels of rakudai where this comes up, so ugh...idk.

      6. You're bringing up a thread where i was actually right and using it as an argument that im bad? Several people actually agreed with the OP (me) in that thread and the changes were applied. So....(?)

      And those last threads just feel like you take every debated thread and put it there. That's like banning all the people who used to argue for Reinhard vs GEoM back in the days.

        Loading editor
    • It doesn't sound like Earl has done anything particularly bad then.

        Loading editor
    • I didn’t take every debated thread I saw with you for the record. I just took those that had some questionable rudeness, like insulting the OP. It wouldn’t be a issue if the comments weren’t particularly pointed, but I suppose that’s for the staff to decide, even if people agreed with you, it doesn’t make your actual conduct instantly okay either.

      I’m not going to respond to your points since the staff tend to take issue with that, unless they ok a discussion, but I hope they’ll be able to look at it and evaluate it objectively.

        Loading editor
    • Insulting the OP? Can you quote cases?

      And "questionable rudeness" everyone has "questionable rudeness" doesn't mean it's "actual rudeness". 

      I mean in one of the threads you linked earlier, you literally have this for a comment:

      I've had to debate this salty motherfucker who literally admitted that he won't change his mind for nearly a full day. 

      Yet you completely overlook that. Which is what i meant by "not have first hand experience and just see the thread as a whole lacking tons of context". 

        Loading editor
    • Firephoenixearl wrote: Insulting the OP? Can you quote cases?

      And "questionable rudeness" everyone has "questionable rudeness" doesn't mean it's "actual rudeness". 

      I mean in one of the threads you linked earlier, you literally have this for a comment:

      I've had to debate this salty motherfucker who literally admitted that he won't change his mind for nearly a full day. 

      Yet you completely overlook that. Which is what i meant by "not have first hand experience and just see the thread as a whole lacking tons of context". 

      Yes, in Stella vs Lux for example, where you stated

      “>op

      >Doesn't know which form is in play

      You're not a good OP are you?”

      Besides, this isn’t a report on Hl3 (who already received a warning anyway). Other people being rude doesn’t make your conduct okay fire.

        Loading editor
    • Wait, don't tell me you're counting this comment as an insult:

      Firephoenixearl

      >op

      >Doesn't know which form is in play

      You're not a good OP are you?

      First of all, me an Ion are rather friendly, second of all how is that even an insult? I believe you need to differentiate between a joke and an insult, not to mention even if it were with ill intent that's not even an insult that's worthy of anything like warnings or punshiments.

      About the other people being rude, i never said it makes what i do ok or anything like that. It was more to say that even cases of extreme rude behaviour/insults like that at the end of that thread just capped at "It would do you well to stop being so hostile". So even an extreme case didn't really resort to punshiments, let alone things like "you're not a good OP" jokes to friends. 

        Loading editor
    • (Just as a fair warning Earl, it’s technically against the rules to argue on the RVT, so this will be the last time I respond to you before staff evaluate, and I suggest we both do that)

      We’ve established before even being friends doesn’t always make that okay, so it’s still something that would need to be looked at.

      That did end up giving the person in question a warning though, and they had significantly less of a history, so a warning at least is justified based on our standards,

        Loading editor
    • It's against the rules to argue on RVT? That i didn't know. Well that seems a bit weird, shouldn't we allow a person to argue for the stuff he's done?

        Loading editor
    • Firephoenixearl wrote: It's against the rules to argue on RVT? That i didn't know. Well that seems a bit weird to say the least, shouldn't we allow a person to argue for the stuff he's done?

      Yes but those are the rules for reasons neither me, you, or anyone else can understand. I don’t agree with it, but what can you do?

        Loading editor
    • If you don’t agree with it, why the hell are we standing around here and simply accepting it? We’re human, not robots. “Not being able to argue” on this thread actively stifles any chance at discussion. Rules or not, everyone is entitled to speak on their behalf when accused.

      So, no, Earl should be able to continue in his defense.

        Loading editor
    • I mean me disagreeing with rules is usually frowned upon (from experience) so eh. 

      I'll at least wait until Ant is online

        Loading editor
    • You can defend yourself when necessary, the verdict is just typically left to the staff instead of being argued together with regular members

        Loading editor
    • Moritzva wrote: If you don’t agree with it, why the hell are we standing around here and simply accepting it? We’re human, not robots. “Not being able to argue” on this thread actively stifles any chance at discussion. Rules or not, everyone is entitled to speak on their behalf when accused.

      So, no, Earl should be able to continue in his defense.

      Fair I guess. I’ve personally tried to argue it and create compromises but they tend to be rejected

        Loading editor
    • Yobo Blue wrote:

      We’ve established before even being friends doesn’t always make that okay, so it’s still something that would need to be looked at.

      Yes doesn't make it ok when it's a full on insult or heavy swearing.

      "Not a good OP" jokes on friends don't fall under that category, otherwise we would have banned 90% of the site.

        Loading editor
    • @Staff members

      So what do you think that we should do here?

        Loading editor
    • I don't think Earl did anything particularly bad. Then again, I don't partake in too many of the same threads as him, but during the times I do see him. He's generally well behaved and not particularly malicious. I can understand why some people might consider him annoying, but he's by no means a harmful person. And as he said in his defense, he's not using excessive profanity or frequently accusing people of "Pulling headcanons out of their ass" just for saying something they disagree with. Also, he was only blocked once, and it was for a week. "Wanking or downplaying verses" isn't really ban worthy, unless they're super aggressive about it.

      And with all that said, I too agree that arguing back and forth on this thread is ill advised.

        Loading editor
    • Okay. Should we dismiss this complaint against him then?

        Loading editor
    • DarkDragonMedeus wrote:

      And with all that said, I too agree that arguing back and forth on this thread is ill advised.

      I kind of felt like i had to argue in this one as there was significant context missing, but ok will keep that in mind.

        Loading editor
    • I'm am no staff anymore but i agree with Bambu on the topic Earl.

      Yes, Earl can be obnoxious sometimes when it comes to debating and yes he kinda comes of as being full of himself sometimes, but he's harmless and a swell guy otherwise. Some people dislike his way and mindset but chucker, humans are sometimes like this.

      Let's not try to punish someone just because he thinks differently or is disliked by more people than others on this website.

        Loading editor
    • I don't see any legitimate rudeness and if wanking and downplaying verses was a thing to get banned for, literally everyone is guilty of it, whether they were aware of it or not. It's poor judgement, which would make you unreliable if anything, not banned or chastised via forum bans.

      I personally don't see anything a normal user wouldn't do, so I'm for not taking action and dismissing the complaint

        Loading editor
    • I agree with First Witch and Zark2099.

        Loading editor
    • Okay. We should probably stop arguing about this then.

        Loading editor
    • I say this as the biggest anti-Earl advocate on the site. He has not broken any rules. Is he a pain to debate against? Sure. Does he bring up some of the most ridiculous shit? Absolutely. Does he get on people's nerves? Without a doubt. But he has not broken any rules here. At most, he's obnoxious.

      If you don't like what he's doing, you don't have to respond to him or the threads he is on. If you disagree with him, great. We all disagree with each other at some point. I believe Earl stonewalling isn't done out of malice, but passion. We've all been there. Personally, I don't like it, but there's not much you can really do about it.

      We have rules in place that punish malice, not assholery. I know that sounds crass, but we've all been assholes at least once. So Earl shouldn't be banned, but he should seriously consider getting a change in attitude. 

        Loading editor
    • I know we should stop arguing about it, so anyone who wants to respond to this please do it on my message wall, but for posterity I want to clarify something about "Earl editing scans."

      I think that it's a complete non-issue. As I mentioned here in that RVT. The only two edits to the scan were that he used a different group's translation, and that instead of just having a single vertical panel, he cropped it in half and moved it to the side. Here's the original here's Earl's edit.

      Considering his argument in the thread was only about the stand's visuals, these edits don't add or remove from his point in any way. And since they mostly seem innocent, I don't see any issue with it.

        Loading editor
    • Thank you for the evaluations.

        Loading editor
    • https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:973442?useskin=oasis#174

      Someone should close that thread and warn Supreme of Universe. He sounds like a troll calling other users "stupid fanboi" and the staff being "little dc fanboyz"

      Anyway he seems like a troll and should at least be warned

        Loading editor
    • Closed the thread.

      He doesn't seem like a troll tbh. I may be wrong though. I'll just be giving a warning to him currently.

        Loading editor
    • Probably. But repeatedly calling other users including the staff as little fanboys and calling someone someone stupid fanboy make him sound like one. Or he's just someone incredibly obnoxious. Anyway, thanks

        Loading editor
    • Obnoxious seems the right call given that he has a few legitimate edits before the supposed outburst.

      Anyhow, I've given the warning. Consider this resolved I suppose

        Loading editor
    • I think almost everyone here has called someone a fanboy before, if it is his first time I do not see why a warning would not be enough.

        Loading editor
    • I think people don't exactly understand that if your last five points on a thread have been just insulting other users and not debating, it is bannable behaviour.

      I didn't give him a warning because he called the other person a fanboy, I gave it because he was derailing the thread, being unreasonable, and with no context claiming everyone else was a DC fanboy.

      Anyhow, as I said, the issue is resolved

        Loading editor
    • I'm sorry but fanboy is has to be one of the most thrown around insults here. I'm pretty sure everyone has been called one, and I don't think people actually get offended, just irratated. He also looks relatively new. He gave good reasonings in his thread too. 

      If we just warn newcomers without actually trying to teach and emphathize with them chances are they are going to want to rebel or just leave. His warning should be both strict but also informative aswell as other newcomers because they likely come from another battle wiki or platform where that is allowed

      Just my 2c. 

      Sorry for the DRail.

        Loading editor
    • I know how to give warnings, thank you. You can check for yourself if you doubt my ability to provide one.

        Loading editor
    • You don't need to be haughty about it, Zark. Shisui didn't say anything to you with that kind of tone, so there's reason for you to respond as such.

      Really, you're defeating your own case by meeting a relatively inoffensive and (from what I can tell) well-meaning suggestion with "I know how to give warnings, thank you."

        Loading editor
    • MrKingOfNegativity wrote:
      Text

      Hey I contacted Zark on her wall. I see where I could've came off like it was targeted toward her but I didn't mean to. We chopped it up. I wanted to say it on here but it might've been on the dRailing side so ill shorten it up so maybe it doesn't take up too much space.

      I was just saying us as a community both staff and nonstaff should be more informative on how we are different from other battle platforms. Most of the new comers come from websites where calling someone a Fanboy and a Wanker are allowed, so I think that when they are new and show this type of behavior we should have a mini paragraph stating how we are different from other platforms.

      Again sorry for the dRail tried to shorten it up as much as possible ​​​​​

      pls don't fuss at meh

        Loading editor