• 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)

Hi, @Mr. Bambu I was banned for something I did back in 2024 and I admit it was immature. I have grown since then. I am not here to argue about it, I just wanted to ask if the mods could review the ban method used in the website since I was not aware of the reason at the time and the link provided did not explain anything. I was confused until tonight.

It kept redirecting me to my profile with zero explination to the ban. I think that will help people moving forward. Thanks.
 
AppleLord said:
Hi, @Mr. Bambu I was banned for something I did back in 2024 and I admit it was immature. I have grown since then. I am not here to argue about it, I just wanted to ask if the mods could review the ban method used in the website since I was not aware of the reason at the time and the link provided did not explain anything. I was confused until tonight.

It kept redirecting me to my profile with zero explination to the ban. I think that will help people moving forward. Thanks.
Click to expand...
I thought it was pretty simple.

Your ban text contains:
https://vsbattles.com/threads/rule-violation-reports-new-forum.107529/post-7565555

Once you go to that link, it leads you to a message, and the message contains "Do not bypass the slur filter." in bold.

And the text succeeded by your username, the one that says "@AppleLord (here)" leads to the message where it shows an instance of you bypassing the slur filter.

Does this somehow not work for you?
 
Just a Random Butler said:
I thought it was pretty simple.

Your ban text contains:
https://vsbattles.com/threads/rule-violation-reports-new-forum.107529/post-7565555

Once you go to that link, it leads you to a message, and the message contains "Do not bypass the slur filter." in bold.

And the text succeeded by your username, the one that says "@AppleLord (here)" leads to the message where it shows an instance of you bypassing the slur filter.

Does this somehow not work for you?
Click to expand...
That's the issue. Once I clicked on the link it took me back to my profile. I couldn't see any page on site that was not my own profile page.

Thought you guys may wanted to know about that.
 
Our forum system manager has replied, and it seems like that is just how XenForo fundamentally works, so I suppose that members who get temporarily banned will have to check through our rule-violation reports thread in another internet browser than the one they usually use. 🙏
 
Antvasima said:
Our forum system manager has replied, and it seems like that is just how XenForo fundamentally works, so I suppose that members who get temporarily banned will have to check through our rule-violation reports thread in another internet browser than the one they usually use. 🙏
Click to expand...
Or they can check their own block log on the VS Battles FANDOM wiki, provided the staff member who issued the ban used the same reason as on the forums.

Something like this:

Alternatively, this can also be accessed by going through your own Contribs section.

Then look for the block log in "Results for AppleLord (Message Wall | block log | uploads | logs | abuse log)".
 
This comment concerns the first restriction I received here about five months ago. Due to my lack of experience in posting topics, my ability to post was limited to one post per month so that I could improve my experience with topics.

Now, I want this restriction to be lifted. When I first joined here, I didn’t know about the other sections; I thought it was only about content review. I also didn’t know the rules and those kinds of things back then. Now, the situation is different. I know the rules and I’m familiar with the other sections. In short, the restriction was due to my lack of experience because I was new, and now I know better. Therefore, the restriction of posting only one post per month should be lifted.
 
I do not know. Would you begin to spam ill-considered threads again? 🙏
 
Antvasima said:
I do not know. Would you begin to spam ill-considered threads again? 🙏
Click to expand...
Personally I would say, if restriction won't be gone fully due to prevent spam from Azerty, alternately you could change limit to one CRT per month to two or three CRTs per month since his arguments got significantly better than it was at start
 
Antvasima said:
I do not know. Would you begin to spam ill-considered threads again? 🙏
Click to expand...
As the one who made the original report, I strongly disagree. Any effort looking into the CRTs should be self-evident why that would be a bad idea.

But an example, his last CRT was being fully handled by others, as his ONLY argument was completely irrelevant. (He argued that infinity being reintroduced had an impact, for downgrades that didn't rely on "infinity not existing" in the first place)
 
What do other staff members here think? 🙏
 
Dark_Soul20189 said:
As the one who made the original report, I strongly disagree. Any effort looking into the CRTs should be self-evident why that would be a bad idea.

But an example, his last CRT was being fully handled by others, as his ONLY argument was completely irrelevant. (He argued that infinity being reintroduced had an impact, for downgrades that didn't rely on "infinity not existing" in the first place)
Click to expand...
What you’re saying is not correct.

Also, don’t believe it, The topic extended to 16 pages, and the arguments changed. I presented a billion arguments in these pages and didn’t rely only on the argument of infinity.
 
I feel it should be lifted. The user feels they’ve grown past their previous stage of spamming threads and admits they’ve changed as they progressively became more aware of the rules. I see no reason the ban shouldn’t be lifted, since the purpose of the ban has had its effect.

If, for example, Azerty continues their previous actions after the ban has been lifted, thereby breaking their word, then they can be met with an even greater punishment. But for now, it just seems a bit unfair to limit someone who claims they’ve stopped their previous behavior, that was due to ignorance.
 
Kaydee1648 said:
for example, Azerty continues their previous actions after the ban has been lifted, thereby breaking their word, then they can be met with an even greater punishment. But for now, it just seems a bit unfair to limit someone who claims they’ve stopped their previous behavior, that was due to ignorance
Click to expand...
I'm on this boat.
 
Kaydee1648 said:
I feel it should be lifted. The user feels they’ve grown past their previous stage of spamming threads and admits they’ve changed as they progressively became more aware of the rules. I see no reason the ban shouldn’t be lifted, since the purpose of the ban has had its effect.

If, for example, Azerty continues their previous actions after the ban has been lifted, thereby breaking their word, then they can be met with an even greater punishment. But for now, it just seems a bit unfair to limit someone who claims they’ve stopped their previous behavior, that was due to ignorance.
Click to expand...
I also think that this seems to make sense, but as I think Kaydee implied, if Azertyhuuh continues to cause problems afterwards, we may apply a full thread-starting restriction instead, or possibly even a block. 🙏
 
Antvasima said:
I also think that this seems to make sense, but as I think Kaydee implied, if Azertyhuuh continues to cause problems afterwards, we may apply a full thread-starting restriction instead, or possibly even a block. 🙏
Click to expand...
I mean if they continued to repeat the same mistake as for which the restrictions were placed, they will naturally recieve greater punishment than before.

@Azertyhuuh so keep in mind that omce restrictions are removed you don't spam Low quality CRTs in short period of time. Research thoroughly, take your time, only then create a CRT.
 
Reiner04 said:
I mean if they continued to repeat the same mistake as for which the restrictions were placed, they will naturally recieve greater punishment than before.

@Azertyhuuh so keep in mind that omce restrictions are removed you don't spam Low quality CRTs in short period of time. Research thoroughly, take your time, only then create a CRT.
Click to expand...
Okay, but you know that there are people who hate me, and even if I post a good topic, they will come just to report me and interpret it however they want, and so on, as you know. Therefore, this type of person should also be dealt with in advance, because I literally told you what would happen in the future.

Also, there should be some kind of punishment applied to people who report others with the goal of getting them banned, for things they didn’t do wrong. Isn’t this also a violation of the rules? This especially applies to people who show this very clearly and continuously. So, I think taking action against them would also make things fair. Because of this, they would think a thousand times before reporting anyone again, since words alone won’t have any effect against them.
 
Azertyhuuh said:
Okay, but you know that there are people who hate me, and even if I post a good topic, they will come just to report me and interpret it however they want, and so on, as you know. Therefore, this type of person should also be dealt with in advance, because I literally told you what would happen in the future.
Click to expand...
We can't preemptively punish people who might take issue with future threads, if that's what you're suggesting.
Azertyhuuh said:
Also, there should be some kind of punishment applied to people who report others with the goal of getting them banned, for things they didn’t do wrong. Isn’t this also a violation of the rules? This especially applies to people who show this very clearly and continuously. So, I think taking action against them would also make things fair. Because of this, they would think a thousand times before reporting anyone again, since words alone won’t have any effect against them.
Click to expand...
The issue is what constitutes an unreasonable report. Reports get rejected or are even discouraged from being made for behaviour that very much warranted reporting. I don't think we can start squashing people for reporting, which is really just pointing to what someone else has done and saying "this may be a rule violation".
 
Last edited:
Viott said:
This guy is really behaving very disrespectfully.

He was also previously warned by Mr. Bambu.
Click to expand...
While Viott’s responses to this user may seem inappropriate it’s vital to note that before that even occurred Viott was being really respectful until the opposing user blew off. If I’m not wrong, this is @Crimsonobu who’s a Lookism supporter. He doesn’t necessarily have a history of demeaning and slandering solely towards Reality Quest however there’s a glaring issue that seems to be happening offsite that could potentially be spreading onsite. Since I’m invested in both respective franchises I can confidently say that provocation, toxicity and ill mannered behaviour is common within the Lookism fandom when Reality Quest falls into the mix. Or when Dowan is simply being mentioned it turns into needless hostility.

Some examples; here (while this occurred offsite he has similar behaviour patterns onsite here and even here). @Allegxtions.

I’m not going to tell staff how to do their job at all but I think it’s important to reiterate and remind others not to bring toxicity that resides offsite, onsite. Nothing good comes out of it and it should be left there, powerscaling as a whole is strictly a hobby and shouldn’t result in verse wars and insults being thrown. Thought it’d be good to bring up and just to clarify it’s not everyone. Just some people.
 
Kaydee1648 said:
I feel it should be lifted. The user feels they’ve grown past their previous stage of spamming threads and admits they’ve changed as they progressively became more aware of the rules. I see no reason the ban shouldn’t be lifted, since the purpose of the ban has had its effect.

If, for example, Azerty continues their previous actions after the ban has been lifted, thereby breaking their word, then they can be met with an even greater punishment. But for now, it just seems a bit unfair to limit someone who claims they’ve stopped their previous behavior, that was due to ignorance.
Click to expand...
Sounds good to me.
Random-Helper323 said:
I think both of them are behaving childish. Still, from what I can tell Saint appears to be the first person to do this and the one loosely implying threatening physical behaviour, a blatant escalation.
Click to expand...
Yeah
 
Random-Helper323 said:
I think both of them are behaving childish. Still, from what I can tell Saint appears to be the first person to do this and the one loosely implying threatening physical behaviour, a blatant escalation.
Click to expand...
Yes, I admit that I acted a bit childish. But the last word he used is absolutely unacceptable. Also, he had already been warned twice. I think something should be done about this guy.
 
Viott said:
Yes, I admit that I acted a bit childish. But the last word he used is absolutely unacceptable. Also, he had already been warned twice. I think something should be done about this guy.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Threats and being extremely vulgar in combination after official warnings is definitely not acceptable.

I do not think that this is the type of member that we want in our community. What do other staff members think? Is it fine if we permanently ban Saint.K.Grass? 🙏
 
Well, Crimsonobu is a more well-established member and has not behaved badly previously as far as I am aware, so maybe banning them completely is too draconian? Let's wait and see what they have to say for themself. 🙏
 
Antvasima said:
Well, Crimsonobu is a more well-established member and has not behaved badly previously as far as I am aware, so maybe banning them completely is too draconian? Let's wait and see what they have to say for themself. 🙏
Click to expand...
I understand.


According to Gamin_Yoon23's comment, Allegxtions and Saint.K.Grass are the same person. Can you check the IP addresses of both?
 
Viott said:
I understand.


According to Gamin_Yoon23's comment, Allegxtions and Saint.K.Grass are the same person. Can you check the IP addresses of both?
Click to expand...
While I’m unsure if they’re the same person their actions are very similar. I don’t think it’d hurt to run an assessment just to avoid the worst case scenario. My input doesn’t mean much but I do think it would be mandatory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

FinePoint
  • Locked
Discussion Rule Word Salad
Replies
22
Views
1K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Agnaa
Fanart Rule Revamp
Replies
7
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
FinePoint
  • Locked
Clarifying Death Threat Rules
2
Replies
64
Views
6K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Kachon123
One Piece: Planet Size Discussion Rule
Replies
17
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
FlipLaScript
Loosening Up Tier 1 Rules
2
Replies
44
Views
3K
Kanogami
Kanogami
Back
Top