• 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)

Ottavio_Merluzzo said:
Reporting @Georredannea15 for the following reasons :

1. Baselessly accused both Ben 10 and Dragon Ball supporters of altering standards for personal benefit.

2. Ignored three warnings from an Admin on separate threads, and kept stonewalling one of them.

3. Created a staff thread out of clear spite to disqualify verses without a clear understanding of the subject matter.

4. Tried to (repeatedly) guide the staff members on the staff thread to add a very specific note. Now about this point, this is just a personal thought, but considering what i posted above and the continuos pursue in trying to convince staff, i think i have a valid motivation for believing this is being done in bad faith.

This is all. Hopefully, this will be the first and last time i'll have to touch this thread.
Click to expand...
I think I have a right to speak here;

Anyway, if we go back to the beginning of this thread, I would like to point out that this thread came to this point because of @Reiner, He wanted that" make the standards more understandable, without any changes in the standarts, just wanted to remove unnecessary wording", but in this thread he removed one of the biggest requirements for the standards, even though DT stated here that it shouldn't be removed, but he ignored him and manipulated the standards for his own gain, and immediately after this thread 2 upgrade threads were opened based on the same logic (one of them was opened by Reiner)


I don't have any grudge or hatred here, I just tried to here make the wrongly manipulated and changed standard correct again, am I to blame for trying to "make the standards correct" or are those who ignoring DT's comments and stubbornly manipulate the standards for their own gain?

You guys can also see that the people who disagreed with my thread, and frankly were a bit aggressive, were the ones who actually participated in these upgrades. I didn't want to bring this up, but they are the ones who did it.

If you find any malicious intent or anything like that in my thread, do what you want. But all I want here is basically just to do the right thing, and they interpreted what I wanted to do "the right thing" as a grudge and hatred...
 
The most I really see is stonewalling and maybe being a jerk. The staff thread was poorly constructed but his core complaint was correct (at DT noted) and the current FAQ definition was broader than intended.

A warning about behavior I get but a ban or anything like that seems like a bit of an overstretch.
 
Qawsedf234 said:
The most I really see is stonewalling and maybe being a jerk. The staff thread was poorly constructed but his core complaint was correct (at DT noted) and the current FAQ definition was broader than intended.

A warning about behavior I get but a ban or anything like that seems like a bit of an overstretch.
Click to expand...
No,never asked for a ban.

I think Reiner should be tagged, as he is being accused of manipulation of standards again.
 
Georredannea15 said:
Anyway, if we go back to the beginning of this thread, I would like to point out that this thread came to this point because of @Reiner, He wanted that" make the standards more understandable, without any changes in the standarts, just wanted to remove unnecessary wording", but in this thread he removed one of the biggest requirements for the standards, even though DT stated here that it shouldn't be removed, but he ignored him and manipulated the standards for his own gain, and immediately after this thread 2 upgrade threads were opened based on the same logic (one of them was opened by Reiner)
Click to expand...
Bros, for real, stop making me excuse of your poor behaviour, being persistent, bother, jerk and stonewall throughout the upgrade threads. My staff thread was open to all, DT said what he wanted and I added as such. You got problem, you sort it off properly. Especially when even DT's current draft doesn't bring a change you are wishing for. At best, DT just said that we can elaborate more on some parts, not that he disagree with the current draft we have accepted. So it's your problem that you're trying to excuse by accusing me for no reason or proof.
 
Qawsedf234 said:
The most I really see is stonewalling and maybe being a jerk. The staff thread was poorly constructed but his core complaint was correct (at DT noted) and the current FAQ definition was broader than intended.

A warning about behavior I get but a ban or anything like that seems like a bit of an overstretch.
Click to expand...
Thank you to you and Bambu for helping out here. 🙏❤️
 
Reiner said:
Bros, for real, stop making me excuse of your poor behaviour, being persistent, bother, jerk and stonewalling throughout the upgrade threads. My staff thread was open to all, DT said what he wanted and I added as such. You got problem, you sort it off properly. Especially when even DT's current draft doesn't bring a change you are wishing for. At best, DT just said that we can elaborate more on some parts, not that he disagree with the current draft we have accepted. So it's your problem that you're trying to excuse by accusing me for no reason or proof.
Click to expand...
Okay, so you supposedly wanted to "just make the wording clearer without making any changes to the standards", and DT stated here that this requirement should not be removed, but in this thread(here) you said that "i removed this requirement and changed the standards". You were the one who said there should be a time like 3 months for open this.

First you say there will be no change, then you ignore DT's comments and remove this requirement, and then you tell me I have to wait 3 months to add this requirement again.

So, you admit that you have changed the standarts and removed this requirement, even though you said there would be no change.
 
Georredannea15 said:
Okay, so you supposedly wanted to "just make the wording clearer without making any changes to the standards", and DT stated here that this requirement should not be removed, but in this thread(here) you said that "i removed this requirement and changed the standards". You were the one who said there should be a time like 3 months for open this.
First you say there will be no change, then you ignore DT's comments and remove this requirement, and then you tell me I have to wait 3 months to add this requirement again.

So, you admit that you have changed, even though you said there would be no change.
Click to expand...
Idk why are u acting as if DT didn't read the draft? My point was clear throughout the thread, plancks pointed it out, i repeate- nah, i screamed in the thread that it is about making it clear that 2 different temporal axis acting on a single structure would be default to be in different direction or else they're not different. DT said same thing. You got problem then get him to change that if you think it's wrong, as his draft is still same as mine. Good luck it's not staff thread for revision. DT just said we can elaborate more on that part. Get him to change the standard rather than accusing someone for no basis, it's not the place to argue who was wrong or who was right about standards. It's a place to report violation. Prove the accusations right now.
 
Reiner said:
Idk why are u acting as if DT didn't read the draft? My point was clear throughout the thread, plancks pointed it out, i repeate- nah, i screamed in the thread that it is about making it clear that 2 different temporal axis acting on a single structure would be default to be in different direction or else they're not different. DT said same thing. You got problem then get him to change that if you think it's wrong, as his draft is still same as mine. Good luck it's not staff thread for revision. DT just said we can elaborate more on that part. Get him to change the standard rather than accusing someone for no basis, it's not the place to argue who was wrong or who was right about standards. It's a place to report violation. Prove the accusations right now.
Click to expand...
This is absolutely wrong, here DT said that you misunderstood him especially in the draft you made and that the requirement should not be removed. Qawsedf also stated here that DT agreed with the thread I opened. And also DeagonX.

I don't know why you still insist on ignoring it.
 
Georredannea15 said:
This is absolutely wrong, here DT said that you misunderstood him especially in the draft you made and that the requirement should not be removed. Qawsedf also stated here that DT agreed with the thread I opened. And also DeagonX.

I don't know why you still insist on ignoring it.
Click to expand...
Idc if i misunderstood, that's your point, idc who was right about the standard this is not the place to argue that either. Where this all supposed to being argued is being argued.

Coming to accusations, prove it. Why you accused me to excuse your poor behaviour, stonewall and being a jerk when reported? Why am I here wasting my time discussing smth that does not belongs here?
 
Reiner said:
Idc if i misunderstood, that's your point, idc who was right about the standard this is not the place to argue that either. Where this all supposed to being argued is being argued.

Coming to accusations, prove it. Why you accused me to excuse your poor behaviour, stonewall and being a jerk when reported? Why am I here wasting my time discussing smth that does not belongs here?
Click to expand...
So... You were the one who first said you wouldn't change and remove it and then said you removed this requirement and changed this standarts yourself, despite DT's comments. I quoted everything above so I think there is no need to say more
 
Georredannea15 said:
So... You were the one who first said you wouldn't change and remove it and then said you removed this requirement and changed this standarts yourself, despite DT's comments. I quoted everything above so I think there is no need to say more
Click to expand...
When I said I won't remove direction stuff? I remember screaming on it on contrary and again you're acting like PPL agreed on current draft w/o reading. There was whole discussion about it.

Now about accusations of manipulating standards and using my telekinesis ability to get mods agree with me, blinding then so that they can't read my draft, any proof of me being supernatural?
 
Reiner said:
When I said I won't remove direction stuff? I remember screaming on it on contrary and again you're acting like PPL agreed on current draft w/o reading. There was whole discussion about it.

Now about accusations of manipulating standards and using my telekinesis ability to get mods agree with me, blinding then so that they can't read my draft, any proof of me being supernatural?
Click to expand...
I quoted everything above so I think there is no need to say more
Click to expand...
 
Sure, I hope that PPL stop excusing their own faults by accusing someone else for anything w/o evidence. Especially cluttering RVR with stuff that doesn't belongs here. If u have said anything to the line of "I think it was wrong that standard changed so I tried to change it" in your post above then i wouldn't have been disturbed as idc. It's your thinking, but it should not be the basis of accusing someone to excuse you faults. Please be mindful from later on @PrinceofPein @Georredannea15 of what u say.
 
Reiner said:
Sure, I hope that PPL stop excusing their own faults by accusing someone else for anything w/o evidence. Especially cluttering RVR with stuff that doesn't belongs here. If u have said anything to the line of "I think it was wrong that standard changed so I tried to change it" in your post above then i wouldn't have been disturbed as idc. It's your thinking, but it should not be the basis of accusing someone to excuse you faults. Please be mindful from later on @PrinceofPein @Georredannea15 of what u say.
Click to expand...
There is evidence, DT said something you misrepresented, I told.you and you ignored it. Anyway enough back and forth.
Antvasima said:
Can other staff members try to evaluate and resolve this situation please?
Click to expand...
DT is the best to resolve, since the claim is about what DT means.
I am also sure the mods here can see the evidence to see what DT means and determine who was wrong.
 
Reiner said:
Sure, I hope that PPL stop excusing their own faults by accusing someone else for anything w/o evidence. Especially cluttering RVR with stuff that doesn't belongs here. If u have said anything to the line of "I think it was wrong that standard changed" then i wouldn't have been disturbed as idc. It's your thinking, but it should not be the basis of accusing someone to excuse you faults. Please be mindful from later on @PrinceofPein @Georredannea15 of what u say.
Click to expand...
A mistake is something that is done without knowing it, but you did not do it by mistake because you explained exactly what you did and your purpose, I have already tagged it above, I think there is no need to talk more. Let the quotes do the talking, not us.
 
The user also admitted he was deliberately creating spite threads, so no doubt about that.
skIhZbO.png
 
I have been trying to help Rose during a private discussion for several months. He seems to suffer from some kind of mental illness that, among other things, has caused him to fixate heavily on Kirby in an extremely negative manner, but I think that we have slowly been making progress.
 
I agree that Rose of Ragnarok should avoid making Vs threads related to Kirby for reasons above.

As for the Tier 1 Dragon Ball controversy, I literally do now know what to say. It's an abusively repeated topic in general, far too many staff are burned out by Dragon Ball revisions, and the thread in general was utter mayhem. I don't think anyone needs super strict punishments as Reiner clearly had fine intentions and while Georr or PrincePein might not have been wrong about Tier 1 Dragon Ball reasons being iffy, the methods were on the blunt side. And both sides have misunderstood what DontTalkDT have actually said or proposed.
 
Antvasima said:
I have been trying to help Rose during a private discussion for several months. He seems to suffer from some kind of mental illness that, among other things, has caused him to fixate heavily on Kirby in an extremely negative manner, but I think that we have slowly been making progress.
Click to expand...
That's why I just advocated for a matchmaking ban for him to reflect on.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I agree that Rose of Ragnarok should avoid making Vs threads related to Kirby for reasons above.

As for the Tier 1 Dragon Ball controversy, I literally do now know what to say. It's an abusively repeated topic in general, far too many staff are burned out by Dragon Ball revisions, and the thread in general was utter mayhem. I don't think anyone needs super strict punishments as Reiner clearly had fine intentions and while Georr or PrincePein might not have been wrong about Tier 1 Dragon Ball reasons being iffy, the methods were on the blunt side. And both sides have misunderstood what DontTalkDT have actually said or proposed.
Click to expand...
Why not ask what DontTalkDT meant by tagging him here? Would it really be that much of a hassle to do so?
 
ThatBusyDude said:
Why not ask what DontTalkDT meant by tagging him here? Would it really be that much of a hassle to do so?
Click to expand...
It being discussed on a staff thread already. also DT already proposed a draft that is same as before with few more cases being added (time travel, different direction of time, etc in case 2 time axis is not proven). Altho, new suggestions has been given. a topic of there anyway.
 
If somebody gets their calc accepted and then a month later changes it to a new calc and doesn't get it evaluated again but adds the new calc to the homepage how long will they be banned for ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
10 11 12
Replies
454
Views
29K
GarrixianXD
GarrixianXD
Mr. Bambu
Slight Adjustment to Rules Regarding Original Works
Replies
37
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Locked
Regarding the Rule Violations Report Thread
2
Replies
71
Views
6K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
H3110l12345I20
IRL Paper has a profile.
Replies
28
Views
1K
JustANormalLemon
JustANormalLemon
DarkGrath
  • Locked
Proposal for Off-Site Rules Revision
2 3
Replies
93
Views
9K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top