-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Rule Violation Reports (New forum)
- Thread starter Antvasima
- Start date
- 178,196
- 91,333
- Thread starter
- #29,722
@Mr. BambuHello.
GodlyCharmander wonders if he can be allowed to come back to our community after being banned for 3 years.
Antvasima
community.fandom.com
I personally do not mind, as I think that he has been punished enough for his transgressions, and he seems to have learned to behave considerably better.
- 34,767
- 42,241
There have been far too many cases of making socks; and all those times we gave them a test to say "If you can promise to wait a whole year without making a sock, you may come back to propose." In which, Charmander failed that test given they made a sock half way through. Not to mention, there have been multiple reports of catfishing, similar to what ImmortalDread did. Socks often identified as being transgender female when their main account identified as cisgendered male. Dread also did and said a lot of creepy stuff online, and coming back also made them a rage baiter, so those supposed self misgendering examples are no where near as bad as Dread. But Charmander has definitely made a lot more socks which is more consistently agreed to be permaban worthy. There's also a similar issue as Misaka Mikoto, where Charmander is reportedly unable to shape up long term. Even if they apologize one day and seem to be on better terms than they used to, it isn't long before they tend to return to their old habits.Hello.
GodlyCharmander wonders if he can be allowed to come back to our community after being banned for 3 years.
Antvasima
I personally do not mind, as I think that he has been punished enough for his transgressions, and he seems to have learned to behave considerably better.
Last edited:
- 4,906
- 4,134
The discussion already ended. He deleted them for the sake of derailment but apparently, it came off as rude now? Which is it? I'm sorry, but this is carelessness and more of an insult that you even found it that way. I literally told the mod to take the advice in the mind, but apparently, it was an insult. Ok, title bias.Yes, and one of Goofy's comments was rather rude, so Oblivion likely simply didn't want the discussion to turn ugly and derail from the main purpose of that thread.
- 4,906
- 4,134
If we can always delete things because it was “derailing” I don't suppose this should be treated as an arbitrary rule. Except:
- The derailment spans only a few comments. In the last one he wanted it to stop. So I stopped. I came back to the wiki because someone told me that the messages were gone.
- If the ground for the sake of derailment(I have never seen a mod do this before) then there shouldn't be a point of argument on his behalf. He should either 1. Ask or 2. Tell me why it was deleted. He just did it out of the blue on matters he should take as an advice.
- Then he claims they were rude? I'm sorry, but I recommend you all read them. Nothing there was rude. Keep in you, you in specific handwave my previous report.
In any case, @Reiner04 never once have you made a judgment on my behalf even when I had the better-grounded reasoning. Your interpretation of this has problems:
You claim Oblivion didn't have the books and other stuff?
1. He answered that because he knew I brought up Ultima being a party that disagrees.
2. He claims he doesn't have books nor time.
3. I told him that these types of matters when not in our control can't be blamed. However, @Udlmaster had all the resources and information.
4. Oblivion was undermining Udl’s hard work and research, in contrast to just saying, the thread isn't as strong with these anti-feats because “I don't have the books, I'm not willing to pay, and I don't have time.”
5. These are a problem because a member brought them for him. He needs to address them. All I saw on the argument side was A. lack of understanding of 0 and B. Wanting to use an excuse for as if we don't understand.
6. Then he deletes the messages due to derailment, but also claims I'm rude. He was being childish in some of his responses. So I ask him not to and to take my messages as advice. Which he deleted because I hit a nerve or something?
Last edited:
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Bureaucrat
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 25,123
- 30,151
I've read the deleted comments and you are being rude in there. Whether they should have been deleted for derailment is another matter, but taking an aside to call someone childish is most certainly rude, we don't need to dwell on these other matters to understand that. Taking offense at being told to stop overthinking may be valid, but in general I would say it's fine.
We do delete comments, historically, for derailment. The fact is that only mods can see deleted messages, so you just... don't see them. It happens with some regularity.
So, the point of contention comes down to whether this is actually derailment. Insofar as I can tell, Oblivion deemed his own comments as derailment and your replies to them as part of that, which is a valid way to look at things. The deleted string of comments begins with Oblivion discussing access to a book which hampered evidence gathering, which is derailing (although harmless enough to stay, they add context).
I think your comment was basically fine, or at least the first one was, but that Oblivion's was mildly derailing. You shouldn't be in trouble for derailing, although this behavior that has come after is not welcome and is, in my opinion, in violation of our basic rules of decency and politeness.
TL;DR My opinion in your case is that you need to be more polite to others, but also that the comments probably didn't need to be deleted (although I think it's a borderline case). I don't think this is worth getting in such a fuss over, though, this seems to be an egregiously petty case.
I've been of the opinion that GodlyCharmander needed a longer ban duration due to the multiple sockpuppeting instances down those years. It becomes unreasonable to evaluate a ban by its duration when there is activity from the banned user via alt accounts. Had it just been that original offense, I would have been fine with an unban years ago.
That said. I suggested that GodlyCharmander return to appeal his ban one year after his last sockpuppet was blocked. We, since then, have not detected another sockpuppet of his in the interim time- someone is free to correct me on that, I am not omniscient yet. In light of that, I would approve of an unban request. A year of no further infractions, albeit preceded by multiple years of consistent infractions, is enough for me to extend the chance to return. This is conditional on no further socks being found out.
We do delete comments, historically, for derailment. The fact is that only mods can see deleted messages, so you just... don't see them. It happens with some regularity.
So, the point of contention comes down to whether this is actually derailment. Insofar as I can tell, Oblivion deemed his own comments as derailment and your replies to them as part of that, which is a valid way to look at things. The deleted string of comments begins with Oblivion discussing access to a book which hampered evidence gathering, which is derailing (although harmless enough to stay, they add context).
I think your comment was basically fine, or at least the first one was, but that Oblivion's was mildly derailing. You shouldn't be in trouble for derailing, although this behavior that has come after is not welcome and is, in my opinion, in violation of our basic rules of decency and politeness.
TL;DR My opinion in your case is that you need to be more polite to others, but also that the comments probably didn't need to be deleted (although I think it's a borderline case). I don't think this is worth getting in such a fuss over, though, this seems to be an egregiously petty case.
Regarding this.
I've been of the opinion that GodlyCharmander needed a longer ban duration due to the multiple sockpuppeting instances down those years. It becomes unreasonable to evaluate a ban by its duration when there is activity from the banned user via alt accounts. Had it just been that original offense, I would have been fine with an unban years ago.
That said. I suggested that GodlyCharmander return to appeal his ban one year after his last sockpuppet was blocked. We, since then, have not detected another sockpuppet of his in the interim time- someone is free to correct me on that, I am not omniscient yet. In light of that, I would approve of an unban request. A year of no further infractions, albeit preceded by multiple years of consistent infractions, is enough for me to extend the chance to return. This is conditional on no further socks being found out.
- 4,906
- 4,134
It hits me of the wrong way( I don't care if I get banned for this). However, my intention wasn't to be rude. His response to me trying to help him by giving him some advice was meant to be a wake-up call. I did not undermine anything about external factors, but it was a wake-up call for him to understand if someone themselves whose willing to go the extra mile to bring anti-feats then if it couldn't be addressed then that's on them regardless of the control in getting the information which the other party is bringing up anyways.
The elephant in the room: “Childish ganter” literally summarized us as his previous point was something on the lines of: “Bruh, it's not that serious or deep.”
I found that remark to be childish, which all I ask afterwards to properly covine things as adults and not have these undertones that a 5-year-old could have. So, if that's consider rude then I see his deletion as completely unnecessary because he's hinging on the fact they were derailment, and this rude call by him would be albeit a minor one, if rude at all as it adds no substance to his deletion. I even stopped typing altogether as he expressed he didn't want to go further.
I'm going to keep expressing this until one of you talk to him about this. If I'm getting banned for this, please do, I don't care. I've had enough to actually trying to help the guy and actually not trying to be rude in any case. Just for both things to be taken as something that warrants this somewhat action of a mod.
Last edited:
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Bureaucrat
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 25,123
- 30,151
I'll write off the misquote, given you can't see the deleted response. He just said "It isn't that deep", I would agree that "bruh" would have changed the tone, but it was not present. As it stands, I think you are, genuinely, reading too much into it. I'm not aware of what history may exist between you two but this singular instance has no weight to it, man. The hill isn't worth dying on.
You were mildly rude and continue to blow a petty thing greatly out of proportion. He probably didn't need to delete comments but I don't think he was strictly in the wrong to do so. Given that this has gone on for many comments, I consider the matter finished.
You've made it clear you will either be banned or have one of us "talk" to him about something that doesn't seem important, so I'm thread banning you for a day to allow the management thread to be used for its actual purpose. If you genuinely wish to pursue something like this, you've already been informed about HR, take it to them.
You were mildly rude and continue to blow a petty thing greatly out of proportion. He probably didn't need to delete comments but I don't think he was strictly in the wrong to do so. Given that this has gone on for many comments, I consider the matter finished.
You've made it clear you will either be banned or have one of us "talk" to him about something that doesn't seem important, so I'm thread banning you for a day to allow the management thread to be used for its actual purpose. If you genuinely wish to pursue something like this, you've already been informed about HR, take it to them.
Udlmaster
Any/All- 7,518
- 3,115
This is an aside to the report, but it is relevant to the thread, so if any of the mods who saw the deleted messages;
Did he actually say this? That he can't be bothered and doesn't have the money to check the books himself?
Because while it's not report-worthy, obviously, it means the thread should be closed as the OP isn't willing to support the verse anymore and that the research itself isn't reliable (which I kinda showed when I researched it myself and came up with evidence against the OP after a single day of searching)
- 14,699
- 5,739
I have almost all books from 4th and 5th editions (and some from 3rd editions). Pax Dei is the one I told him I dont have it/couldn't find it, outside of Atlas' official site.
So the "I dont have the books" part is just misinformation.
After all, the scans must have come from somewhere. And I dont think anyone made a thread on this verse before, so.
Last edited:
- 13,826
- 19,679
I think that's misrepresentation of what he actually said in the thread.
What he actually said is:
So he's saying he did try to find it, but it wasn't free content, and he just didn't spend money on it because he didn't know it would be important.
Didn't say anything like "he don't have time" or dont want or willing to spend time to research on it, he infact did searched for the book. That's just deliberate misrepresentation.
- 34,767
- 42,241
It was actually brought up 4 months ago. And @The_Yellow_Topaz was outed as a sock of GodlyCharmander. Thus confirming they broke the 1 year promise and it was agreed to keep them permabanned for good because of that. And a more detailed history can be listed here.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Bureaucrat
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 25,123
- 30,151
The Yellow Topaz ban was about a year ago (tomorrow is May 1st, with the ban being finalized on Yellow_Topaz on May 23rd). When I recommended a year without sockpuppeting, it was following the Yellow Topaz incident, and indeed, my comment on the subject was made during that discussion 4 months ago. I'm not saying you need to agree with me, but this is all known information.
- 5,706
- 3,137
????So is it fine if we unblock GodlyCharmander on a probational "be on your best behaviour" basis around the end of this month when a year has passed?
He literally broke the agreement for the one year ban as DDM outlined, and thus is on a permaban.
What has changed from then to make that not stand?
- 34,767
- 42,241
When I proposed "One Year," that was on September 2023. Meaning had they waited from September 2023 to the end of September 2024 without making a single sock between those periods, I would have been okay with a request but still not forget the past transgressions and still have a watchful eye. But The Yellow Topaz was made before the goal post and also was reportedly hostile to various users and staff, and I also agreed to the opposite end of the bargain that a promise broken equals that one and final chance being officially broken, permanently. I really do not think we should even let them back.
But if some are truly that passionate about giving them "Another Final chance," I am willing to accept as staff vote count. I already voted keeping them permabanned, and I am sure many others agree. But the scales of conviction could decide that if a vote tally comes to that.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Bureaucrat
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 25,123
- 30,151
Ah, you're referring to a different proposal.
When I proposed one year, it was in December 2024. It hasn't been a year since the proposal, but it has been a year since the Yellow_Topaz incident. I wasn't aware you made the same suggestion, although given that it has still been a year since the last sock, I wonder if that interfaces at all with your opinion- I would assume not.
You're right that Yellow_Topaz maintained some amount of hostility towards other users, though I have considered that in my vote already.
I do think, Ant, that whatever the outcome here, this should be the last ban appeal. Most people have made clear that they are unwilling to extend leniency to Charmander, given the extreme amount of sockpuppeting he's done down the years.
- 34,620
- 35,071
I'm currently not in favor of it. Someone who has repeatedly circumvented their ban does not deserve this kind of leniency. Just because they can be patient doesn't mean their motives have improved in any way since the last time they were here.So is it fine if we unblock GodlyCharmander on a probational "be on your best behaviour" basis around the end of this month when a year has passed?
- 13,826
- 19,679
Topaz, in my mind, also had very short temper, he was repeatedly hostile towards other users, his few instances that I clearly remember are:
vsbattles.com
He was initially banned for abusing AKM as GodlyCharmander also, so his behaviour didn't improved even as sock. I have no opinion on whether he should return back or not, just thought it is important to note.
One Piece AP review
A long time ago there was a discussion about the deeds in the red movie being canon, but nobody took it any further, but now it could be accepted, because oda has attached notes to guide the animators, as well as revising the script, saying that the information is canon. [ That said, we have the...
He was initially banned for abusing AKM as GodlyCharmander also, so his behaviour didn't improved even as sock. I have no opinion on whether he should return back or not, just thought it is important to note.
- 178,196
- 91,333
- Thread starter
- #29,742
Yes, that might unfortunately be necessary.
- 3,271
- 4,286
Y'all can I report someone even if they never strictly violated any rules, for never offering anything of substance to the discussion, ever, and excessively wasting time?
- 5,185
- 4,300
If they are intentionally stonewalling and/or deliberately side-tracking the thread/discussion, then it would be a valid report and rule break.
- 7,939
- 12,042
Dark_Soul20189 is correct.
Certain rules are vague enough to encompass a pattern of behavior rather than a specific incident.
And so long as your intentions seem genuine, there's no punishment for filing a report that doesn't lead to anything, so go ahead.
Last edited:
- 3,271
- 4,286
They're not even doing that though, they're just:
- Continuously asking questions that have already been blatantly answered by the source material (here, here, here)
- Spewing jargon that makes me think they've only interacted with the manga through powerscaling sites like this one (here, here)
- Struggling to understand even the slightest amount of non-powerscaling nuance to statements (here, here, here)
- Repeating arguments that have been long settled (here, here)
- And bringing up the most broken "calcs" I've ever seen (here, here)
Last edited:
- 7,939
- 12,042
I will look over it now. Please give me a minute to do so.
- 7,939
- 12,042
I do not see anything which constitutes malicious behavior.
These are all questions in a general discussion thread, seemingly from someone who doesn't know much about the verse but would like to.
I do not think any official instructions are needed, especially since they're not even doing it in revision threads.
However, if it annoys you, I would suggest letting them know that the best way to learn about the series if they're passionate about scaling it is to simply consume its media. Help direct them towards where they can do so, perhaps.
If they're annoying other people in the thread too, perhaps that could simply be explained to them.
- 3,271
- 4,286
Yeah, that's what I figured, Hanlon's Razor and all that. Just had to vent this somehow.
- 7,939
- 12,042
No problem.
If you need help formulating a message to send them, let me know, I'd be happy to help make it polite but effective.
- 3,271
- 4,286
That'd be swell.
- 7,939
- 12,042
Something like this, perhaps:
"Hey, Aaaaa11112222, I've noticed you asking a lot of very basic questions about Chainsaw Man in the general discussion thread. While I respect your passion for learning about the series, the frequency of these questions might distract from the other, more complicated discussion happening there. If you're interested in scaling the series, it would probably be best to watch the show and/or read the manga first so you can be properly armed with a basis of knowledge for it. This would make it a lot on easier on us, since it can be a little tiresome having to explain it all to you second-hand.
If you don't know how to access the series, let me know, and I might be able to help you find it."
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Bureaucrat
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 25,123
- 30,151
Hello all. This post is in regards to a private report our staff have evaluated recently regarding Ninjago, in particular with its CRTs and the usage of WoG. It has been proven to the satisfaction of the involved staff that @Lloydblitzed likely stands in violation of our offsite rules regarding contacting content creators with leading questions. As such, it has been determined that all WoG must be scrubbed from Ninjago, and whatever ratings and abilities are currently justified with it must be removed and replaced. Furthermore, it has been agreed for now that unless some form of defense is offered that sways the staff, a ban duration of two months has been suggested and approved.
For now, @Lloydblitzed, you are afforded time to come to your defense. We have identified these Bluesky and Twitter accounts as yours, and all evidence of leading questions is pulled from them.
For now, @Lloydblitzed, you are afforded time to come to your defense. We have identified these Bluesky and Twitter accounts as yours, and all evidence of leading questions is pulled from them.
- 9,074
- 1,081
I'd like to add to this report that a similar situation seems to be going on with the verse: Lego Monkie Kid. That same twitter account asked leading questions, which were used to upgrade the verse's lifting strength to infinite. Notably, it was @Arency who posted the CRT and included the WoG, rather than @Lloydblitzed, which may need to be taken into account.
I don't know anything about this verse, so I don't know whether these leading questions are commonplace there as well.
- 550
- 126
I dont know if it's not allowed since @LordGriffin1000 was fine with it. But if you want, I can replace the LS ratings with another feat that's accepted.
- 6,699
- 3,576
Seriously? Most WoG related statements for the show aren't even used on site (including those I asked), and most of them who are in use genually doesn't go against the established rules we have for WoG nor are really leading. I can also guess pretty well who are the ones that targetted me, some of which even made a false report to try to punish me before for "not adding their vote in a Ninjago CRT". Morever, I feel like this is due to the Low 1-A Ninjago thread questions and scans, which I didn't even made nor agree with, and only argued about a specific question being allowable in the website
Last edited:
- 6,699
- 3,576
Yet again, I never pulled them on site nor made a thread to argue its usage or anything
- 6,699
- 3,576
Only cuz it got accepted. I didn't originally argue it, and Im pretty sure that WoG was used as a supportive to a feat. Staff has seen the scan and accepted it regardless too
- 9,074
- 1,081
"Infinite (Can casually lift up The Golden Staff, which is stated to have infinite weight)"
It's the primary feat. And it's still a rule violation, even if it went unnoticed by the staff members who were present at the time.
