-
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
- 512
- 202
Thanks. They promised they'd never do it again.
- 18,393
- 14,311
@ShionAH Thank you for the translations; I'll remember to seek your advice whenever we encounter similar situations.
@Antvasima I think the matter can be closed. Unless you got any objections, we can move on.
@Antvasima I think the matter can be closed. Unless you got any objections, we can move on.
- 4,184
- 4,909
Reporting @Dr._whiteee for dishonesty and trying to use unaccepted abilities as if they were actually accepted despite the blatant contentions
Here he says he would follow up with contended abilities in another CRT as the main ability in question (Void Manipulation) was quite literally heavily in contention with what it seems to be a 3-3 (possibly 3 (disagreements) - 2 (agreements) staff split.
Here in this thread he also tries to pass off the ability as accepted and invalidate the votes that were in his CRT by saying they went 2 weeks without opposition
(also Maitreya was arguing in their stead and his opinions were not opposed enough to invalidate those who disagreed with void manip even if staff votes could be invalidated)
However here it clearly says to not discard the opposing sides opinion if they have not replied in 2 weeks and obviously this also to staff vote.
I think this is just blatantly underhanded tactics using unaccepted and contested abilities in vs matches and trying to gaslight people into believing as if they were accepted.
Here he says he would follow up with contended abilities in another CRT as the main ability in question (Void Manipulation) was quite literally heavily in contention with what it seems to be a 3-3 (possibly 3 (disagreements) - 2 (agreements) staff split.
And apparently Elizhaa has also agreed with void manip although it doesn't seem so as all Elizhaa did was affirm what he said about about abilities under contention and gave the go ahead to apply the abilities that were clearly accepted which yes can be taken as an agreement but only to what wasn't under contention. Also one admin quite literally cannot overturn 3 opposing votes.
Here in this thread he also tries to pass off the ability as accepted and invalidate the votes that were in his CRT by saying they went 2 weeks without opposition
(also Maitreya was arguing in their stead and his opinions were not opposed enough to invalidate those who disagreed with void manip even if staff votes could be invalidated)
However here it clearly says to not discard the opposing sides opinion if they have not replied in 2 weeks and obviously this also to staff vote.
I think this is just blatantly underhanded tactics using unaccepted and contested abilities in vs matches and trying to gaslight people into believing as if they were accepted.
- 18,393
- 14,311
I recall he got reported for similar behaviour as well.
- 10,775
- 18,705
Just to add, elizhaa never voted, the only thing he did was to say that the changes could be applied but the problem comes in the amount of votes.
And it should also be noted that not only those 3 staffs who were against were the only ones who voted against, but also 3 more staffs who doesn't have the votes rights without counting the strong disagreement from the rest of the users.
Also this is true.
- 10,775
- 18,705
And as one of those who was against the abilities, I want to say that this does not apply, because my points and staff points against abilities were given but even though white sometimes did not count them as valid, he proceeded to make the same counter-argument forcing us to clarify our points again and then doing the same, each one gave their points against and that is why there was no need even to mention "the other party did not respond to my counterarguments" since from the beginning our disagreement was clear and concise.
- 1,826
- 2,019
I'd like to add on that Maitreya (who was leading most of the opposition's reponses) had made a response to one of White's main arguments, 2 staff members (DarkGrath and DarkDragonMedeus) had agreed to that same argument in approval of Void Manipulation's addition but that was after Maitrey's counter response to it (which went unaddressed by any of the revision's supporters). Maitreya had also asked White to remove Void Manipulation and several other controversial abilities so that the less controversial changes could be applied, White did remove those abilities yet Void Manipulation was kept in the op despite it being one of the most contentious topics of that revision.
Last edited:
- 2,308
- 1,765
I obviously disagree with this.
No I did not which is evident by my actual post
An objective reading of this clearly sees me invoking two week grace period given the time between the last response to arguments posited in the thread. I go on to ask if the thread can be passed in its current state (as contectually I removed the other controversial elements I was willing to part with in order to expedite the thread as noted here) with any further contentions being handled in a further CRT.
I am obviously not what I was referring to when I asked for further contentions to be handled in another CRT, I am saying in light of evoking grace, that the thread at that time be passed and any user with further contentions make it.
This also ignores the already accepted Ontology thread for the verse which blatantly establishes what I was talking about in said thread.
This is blatantly framing this situation with bias. As noted in my posts to you, void manip was not even relevant to why Gojo wins in that thread (which is CM type 2 as stated by several people which you ignored). I also never tried to invalidate votes as I am not even the OP. Me saying I think someone is wrong and giving my threads is not trying to manipulate votes, especially when I flat out told you that void manip wasn't a factor really being discussed.
I did say the ability was accepted though.
I have asked admins and have been told that the opposition has two weeks to respond before grace is considered. I clearly highlighted that sentiment in my post as well that Eilzha said yes to. So unless I am completely misunderstanding her, I don't really see how you are saying I am violating any rules.
Not really as CM type 2 was already accepted, and I didn't hide anything and linked all of my evidence for everyone to see. Not sure how that'd be "underhanded"
Last edited:
- 2,308
- 1,765
Another highly bias attempt to defame me here given I announced I would not be letting up on Void manip several times, and explicitly that I'd be removing those other abilities. I never once said or indicated I would be removing void manip, nor did I mention that when asking if the thread could be closed as is due to grace. [1] [2] [3] [4]
Furthermore this is also dishonest as Maitreya directly responded to me asking the thread openly if void manip could be added due to staff agreement.
Grath then made this post to affirm that staff who disagreed had been given ample time. 2 weeks went by after this post trying to have discourse.
Which I then stated this which Eilzha confirmed and Duedate went through with. Literally everything was out in the open.
- 4,184
- 4,909
Unless I'm grossly misinterpreting something then yes the void manip stuff was essentially brought up such as here
which I assume is this here in your ontology blog. Except the problem is you're trying to basically say Sukuna has void manipulations for reasons that were under contest and not accepted in the thread and even your interpretation of Sunyata was under heavy scrutiny in that ability thread due to being way too generous with buddhism scaling or relations.
I'm not gonna go back and forth but I would like to leave my hopefully last word here.
- 1,826
- 2,019
He made that statement under the assumption that more staff had approved of it to the point that it could actually passed.
Dereck under the very post below that says that they approve of Maitreya's counter response (the one that had not been addressed by any supporters) to the main argument in favor of Void Manipulation that DarkGrath and DarkDragonMedeus had agreed to. If the counter response that staff members agreed to had not been argued against by any supporters, I don't see why the staff voting against Void Manipulation should've had to reaffirm their vote again even after doing so multiple times previously in the thread.
The procedure of CRTs isn't to let an argument against you that has approval of staff and other members go ignored and then pass whatever you were proposing despite a 3-2 vote against you so long as enough time passes.
Last edited:
- 2,308
- 1,765
The void I brought up in the thread was in relation to the ontology of his CM type 2 slash, which was accepted in the ontology thread.Unless I'm grossly misinterpreting something then yes the void manip stuff was essentially brought up such as here
and here
which I assume is this here in your ontology blog. Except the problem is you're trying to basically say Sukuna has void manipulations for reasons that were under contest and not accepted in the thread and even your interpretation of Sunyata was under heavily scrutiny in that ability thread due to being way too generous with buddhism scaling or relations.
I'm not gonna go back and forth but I would like to leave my hopefully last word here.
The application of void manip for barrier users, is a separate topic that is the one that was in contention in the thread you linked.
I state as much in this very post. I am not denying stated that I said void manip was accepted, but my bringing it up in the thread was not even in relation to the aspect you are talking about here, and made that pretty clear.
- 582
- 452
User Vandalized Anos Profile, also requesting a lock on his page since it's normally supposed to be locked.
- 1,664
- 2,603
Locked + gave instructions to user
- 7,311
- 13,267
I am advocating that @Iamunanimousinthat be given a topic ban to stop pursuing Tier 1 upgrades for Sailor Moon, given 5 attempts in the last year.
Sailor Moon Tier 1 Upgrade - Rejected by Mav & Planck
Sailor Moon Tier 1 Upgrade (Reformatted) - Rejected by Glass, Lonkitt, Planck, myself
Sailor Moon: Tier 1 Corridor of Spacetime Door - Rejected by Ultima, myself
Why not? Sailor Moon Tier One: The Last Time - Rejected by Qawsedf, Lonkitt, Planck, myself, and indirectly by DT.
Sailor Moon! Tier One! The Ultimate Panacea! - Ongoing, but the only staff vote thus far is my disagreement.
As well as this failed upgrade thread:
Sailor Mercury: Dimensional Manipulation - Rejected by Lonkitt, Glass, Elizhaa
I think this is a bit of a problem and is starting to waste a lot of staff time, because in each one of these attempts this user absolutely refuses to concede to any staff objections despite never getting a single moderator to agree with Tier 1 upgrades, despite fairly thorough and patient explanations from Qawsedf, DontTalk, Ultima, et cetera. He simply digs in even more, and even went as far as to accuse Maverick of "power abuse" for creating a thread to propose a potential Discussion Rule on the subject.
As a result I think they should be asked to stop pursuing high tier upgrades for Sailor Moon given that their philosophy on the matter is so clearly at odds with staff consensus despite several attempts.
@Maverick_Zero_X @Qawsedf234 @Lonkitt @Planck69 @Theglassman12
Sailor Moon Tier 1 Upgrade - Rejected by Mav & Planck
Sailor Moon Tier 1 Upgrade (Reformatted) - Rejected by Glass, Lonkitt, Planck, myself
Sailor Moon: Tier 1 Corridor of Spacetime Door - Rejected by Ultima, myself
Why not? Sailor Moon Tier One: The Last Time - Rejected by Qawsedf, Lonkitt, Planck, myself, and indirectly by DT.
Sailor Moon! Tier One! The Ultimate Panacea! - Ongoing, but the only staff vote thus far is my disagreement.
As well as this failed upgrade thread:
Sailor Mercury: Dimensional Manipulation - Rejected by Lonkitt, Glass, Elizhaa
I think this is a bit of a problem and is starting to waste a lot of staff time, because in each one of these attempts this user absolutely refuses to concede to any staff objections despite never getting a single moderator to agree with Tier 1 upgrades, despite fairly thorough and patient explanations from Qawsedf, DontTalk, Ultima, et cetera. He simply digs in even more, and even went as far as to accuse Maverick of "power abuse" for creating a thread to propose a potential Discussion Rule on the subject.
As a result I think they should be asked to stop pursuing high tier upgrades for Sailor Moon given that their philosophy on the matter is so clearly at odds with staff consensus despite several attempts.
@Maverick_Zero_X @Qawsedf234 @Lonkitt @Planck69 @Theglassman12
- 3,295
- 1,272
I did not accuse maverick of power abuse. I accused you, immortal dread, . Please correct that.
I will post a response later.
KingNanaya
He/Him- 2,658
- 3,687
- 7,311
- 13,267
In this thread that Maverick posted, proposing a discussion rule, you immediately responded before either myself or Dread had responded and said:
So I don't feel that what I said was incorrect or a mischaracterization of your actions. Further, you said:
Which, at that point, includes myself, Dread, and Lonkitt, who agreed with the suggestion of a discussion rule.
Regardless, feel free to provide your response when you are able.
- 10,399
- 5,237
I would like to add one thing, he created in the question session a disguised CRT according to @Qawsedf234
- 18,393
- 14,311
I fully support the proposed topic ban, and if it is approved, @Maverick_Zero_X should voluntarily close her own thread. In my view, whether it's a discussion rule or a topic ban, the essence is the same. However, a decisive action should be taken, as continually debating the same point or premise has become wearisome.
- 3,295
- 1,272
I will first of iterate that there was an abuse of power.
The CRT thread was being derailed with users asking for a discussion rule, and mods Deagonx and Immortal Dread encouraging their behavior and continuing the conversation and not making a new thread. They chastised me for asking them to follow the rules of the site and continued to do so. I thank Maverick for making the post as I asked and that stopped the thread from being further derailed.
This is a continued abuse of power, because Deagon himself have said that I have broken no rules. Other mods have also said I have broken no rules. All my threads were created with brand new arguments and new material. This is a witch hunt not based on any evidence.
This rule would be a gross misuse of power and will just be a form of censorship. Making CRT threads that the mods disagree with is not a crime. I am the only active Sailor Moon supporter on this site. Many have come and gone. Many other fandoms have large fans who work together to push different upgrade threads that get rejected. The diference between them and me is that I am one person.
This accusation makes it sound like disagreeing with opinions of the mod is a sin. I have right to disagree and voice my opinion.
CRT threads are not like calculations where the math is right or it's wrong. They are subject conversations where one party argues that a verse fits the site's standards. A rule such as this should be in place for users who post dishonest material, such as photoshopped or doctored material, who post fake scans.
Banning me from making topics because you don't like my arguments or because you're tired of seeing them is silly and childish. No where in this rule violation are actual objective wrongs. All there is just feelings. For a site that tries to pride itself on accuracy and logic, this is beyond egregious.
Especially more is the cherry picking. Only showing threads that I have gotten rejected, when you haven't posted the threads that I have succeeded. I have successfully gotten Acausality, immeasurable speed, their 2 for majority of the cast not to mention my successes for other verses. This creates a biased look on my character and doesn't showcase the full nature of my being on this site. If every user was to be judged solely by their defeats, then its easy to paint them in a negative light.
And its also interesting, that so many of my other Sailor Moon threads die out because no one responds to them and have to beg to get staff, but all my teir one threads have the same individuals swarming bringing negativity and asking for rule discussions before anyone even interacts with the content.
In the latest CRT, I brought a never before seen material. I am arguing for a cosmology blog as Qawesdf suggested. I was arguing higher second tiers. Did Deagon even open my cosmology blog? The mods instantly decided to derail my thread.
Also I want to point out:
That thread was closed without warning from Deagon. Threads are allowed to remain open for a long time, and go on for a long time. I never got a response, especially when Ultima called the Corridor the bulk of the timeline, and the bulk of space is scientific idea that the visible, three-dimensional universe is restricted to a brane inside a higher-dimensional space, called the "bulk" (also known as "hyperspace").
Trying to paint me as being devious for simply waiting for answer to simply inquiry is beyond silly. I mean look at this:
This is their reasoning. "it's become wearisome". No facts. No rule violations. No rule breaking. Just subjective feelings. These mods don't have to engage with Sailor Moon threads. They don't engage in any of the other threads.
The CRT thread was being derailed with users asking for a discussion rule, and mods Deagonx and Immortal Dread encouraging their behavior and continuing the conversation and not making a new thread. They chastised me for asking them to follow the rules of the site and continued to do so. I thank Maverick for making the post as I asked and that stopped the thread from being further derailed.
This is a continued abuse of power, because Deagon himself have said that I have broken no rules. Other mods have also said I have broken no rules. All my threads were created with brand new arguments and new material. This is a witch hunt not based on any evidence.
This rule would be a gross misuse of power and will just be a form of censorship. Making CRT threads that the mods disagree with is not a crime. I am the only active Sailor Moon supporter on this site. Many have come and gone. Many other fandoms have large fans who work together to push different upgrade threads that get rejected. The diference between them and me is that I am one person.
This accusation makes it sound like disagreeing with opinions of the mod is a sin. I have right to disagree and voice my opinion.
CRT threads are not like calculations where the math is right or it's wrong. They are subject conversations where one party argues that a verse fits the site's standards. A rule such as this should be in place for users who post dishonest material, such as photoshopped or doctored material, who post fake scans.
Banning me from making topics because you don't like my arguments or because you're tired of seeing them is silly and childish. No where in this rule violation are actual objective wrongs. All there is just feelings. For a site that tries to pride itself on accuracy and logic, this is beyond egregious.
Especially more is the cherry picking. Only showing threads that I have gotten rejected, when you haven't posted the threads that I have succeeded. I have successfully gotten Acausality, immeasurable speed, their 2 for majority of the cast not to mention my successes for other verses. This creates a biased look on my character and doesn't showcase the full nature of my being on this site. If every user was to be judged solely by their defeats, then its easy to paint them in a negative light.
And its also interesting, that so many of my other Sailor Moon threads die out because no one responds to them and have to beg to get staff, but all my teir one threads have the same individuals swarming bringing negativity and asking for rule discussions before anyone even interacts with the content.
In the latest CRT, I brought a never before seen material. I am arguing for a cosmology blog as Qawesdf suggested. I was arguing higher second tiers. Did Deagon even open my cosmology blog? The mods instantly decided to derail my thread.
Also I want to point out:
Ultima made a comment, and i replied back to him and was waiting for his comment. I informed him about the greater context of the Sailor Moon cosmology and wanted to hear his opinion with the new information.
That thread was closed without warning from Deagon. Threads are allowed to remain open for a long time, and go on for a long time. I never got a response, especially when Ultima called the Corridor the bulk of the timeline, and the bulk of space is scientific idea that the visible, three-dimensional universe is restricted to a brane inside a higher-dimensional space, called the "bulk" (also known as "hyperspace").
Trying to paint me as being devious for simply waiting for answer to simply inquiry is beyond silly. I mean look at this:
This is their reasoning. "it's become wearisome". No facts. No rule violations. No rule breaking. Just subjective feelings. These mods don't have to engage with Sailor Moon threads. They don't engage in any of the other threads.
- 7,311
- 13,267
It had been a month and a half since Ultima provided his disagreement. Threads do not need to remain open indefinitely with two staff disagrees and no agrees just because you really-really-really want Ultima to continue discussing it with you.
Indeed, which is why I am not advocating for a forum ban. However, if your personal scaling philosophy is so drastically at odds with the wiki staff to such an extent that you get five Tier 1 upgrade attempts rejected in a row, it paints the picture that these threads are simply a waste of everyone's time.
Evaluating threads is part of the gig. Given your propensity for pursuing unreliable Tier 1 upgrades, I wouldn't be doing a very good job if I didn't make sure I objected to it. Doing this relentlessly and saying "if staff are getting tired of it then that's their problem and they should just not comment on the threads!" is not an adequate defense here.
- 3,295
- 1,272
So that this is rule will be based on your personal feelings and nothing objective?
- 7,311
- 13,267
This isn't the gotcha you seem to believe it is. It's not uncommon to issue topic bans for users that repeatedly attempt unsound upgrades. You are entitled to your opinions, but for a CRT to pass you must convince staff members that you are correct. You are not entitled to unlimited attempts at doing so.
- 165,229
- 72,263
- Thread starter
- #24,587
@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath @JustSomeWeirdo @Theglassman12 @Eficiente @DemonGodMitchAubin @Duedate8898 @Planck69 @Armorchompy @CrimsonStarFallen @LordTracer @Emirp sumitpo @EliminatorVenom @Lonkitt @LephyrTheRevanchist @Deagonx @FinePoint @Elizio33 @Dereck03 @Propellus
We need your continuous help in these threads.
We need your continuous help in these threads.
- 165,229
- 72,263
- Thread starter
- #24,588
This is correct, yes.
- 3,295
- 1,272
Where is your evidence that upgrades are unsound? A thread being rejected does not equal the arguments being unsound. The arguments can be logical but simply don't fit in the standards.
Please go through each thread and state why they are unfounded? Did I lie about evidence? Was my grammar off? Was it in another language? Was it impossible to read and understand? Staff not agreeing with a thread doesn't mean the attempt was unsound. Be objective.
The wiki currently states that new arguments must be presented. You also stated that I presented new arguments every time. Where in the wiki is it stated that we can only try to upgrade a verse with new arguments only a limited amount of times?
Again, nothing objective is being brought here. Just feelings.
- 7,311
- 13,267
If your point boils down to "but you can't objectively PROVE my CRT was bad!" then I don't find it terribly persuasive. I am not an arbiter of objective truth, nobody is. However, the metric we use to determine whether CRTs pass is staff agreement. If you have such an incredible opposition to that concept then you should leave the forum, because I don't foresee that system being replaced with a supposedly "objective" one any time soon.
As such, that is the metric of judgment that I am using: staff agreement. I am not going to rehash the arguments against your CRTs here in the RVR, as that would be redundant to the fact that they were rejected in the first place and those debunks are in each thread for all to view. However, it is objectively true that all staff members that have participated in your 5 Tier 1 upgrade threads have disagreed, not a single one has agreed.
Are you right? Are you wrong? Can't say, because I am not the arbiter of objective truth. I can simply say that you've repeatedly attempted and failed to pass an upgrade and should be asked to stop to save staff time, so that we can focus on CRTs that are actually viable.
As such, that is the metric of judgment that I am using: staff agreement. I am not going to rehash the arguments against your CRTs here in the RVR, as that would be redundant to the fact that they were rejected in the first place and those debunks are in each thread for all to view. However, it is objectively true that all staff members that have participated in your 5 Tier 1 upgrade threads have disagreed, not a single one has agreed.
Are you right? Are you wrong? Can't say, because I am not the arbiter of objective truth. I can simply say that you've repeatedly attempted and failed to pass an upgrade and should be asked to stop to save staff time, so that we can focus on CRTs that are actually viable.
- 3,295
- 1,272
I didn't ask you to re-hash my arguments. I asked you give a reason why they were unsound.
Falsifying evidence is a reason.
Incoherent is a reason
Not providing any scans is a reason
Didn't think they fit the standards isn't a reason. An argument can be sound, and just be disagreed with.
And I was literally asked to make a CRT thread about the cosmology blog by another mod. Again, the thread that YOU derailed, wasn't even just for tier one. Were my other arguments in that thread unsound?
- 7,311
- 13,267
I wholeheartedly disagree. However, your objection is noted. For now this should not be cluttered further so that other staff can evaluate the situation.
- 18,393
- 14,311
I'm starting to sense that you are deliberately attempting to misinterpret him. You've presented your defense; now, let other staff team members determine the course of action for you.
- 3,295
- 1,272
This is an an extremely unfair accusation.
- 18,393
- 14,311
Talking about accusations while you accused 3 staff members is ironic, stop commenting here, and let others handle your case. This is not QnA
- 3,295
- 1,272
I accused two staff members and provided reasoning and evidence for it.
You can argue that you and Deagon weren't derailing that thread.
And you can argue that topic banning over zero rule violations isn't an abuse of power. (SPOILER ALERT: Punishing someone who didn't break any rules is an abuse of power)
I cannot argue against your own interpretation of my intentions.
But I have said enough.
Last edited:
- 19,687
- 16,055
In my view I don't think a thread ban is needed the moment. The user is 100% working backwards because they want SM to be Low 1-C, but the arguments and evidence used for each of the threads are different in my view, rather than using the same stuff with some adjustments multiple times.
Based on experience the issue is more them not getting what does and doesn't count for higher dimensional spaces rather than anything else.
Though I'm not against one being issued, since the OP has shown that they can get a bit aggressive at times, but for the most part I think I can understand where its coming from.
- 165,229
- 72,263
- Thread starter
- #24,598
Thank you very much for your evaluation.
However, I do personally think that almost trying to enforce an upgrade by trying over and over and over until some staff member finally accepts it, despite many others repeatedly rejecting it previously, seems unacceptable and to set a bad precedent.
- 1,081
- 2,502
Sorry to intrude, but I must ask if it's been decided that action could be taken against Iamunanimousinthat rather than creating a discussion rule? I ask because technically speaking, the discussion rule staff thread has already received 3 votes (Maverick, Deagon, Lonkitt) and can therefore techincally pass after grace unless more staff go there and disagree with it.
- 7,311
- 13,267
I guess it's a question of "How many CRTs will this play out in?" IMO if the current thread fails he should be asked not to make any more. I've seen you explain the error of his ways in exhaustive detail only to be met with continued ardent resistance in multiple threads. The same goes for Ultima and DT, who also objected to his reasoning.
If Iamuninamous wants to take a crack at revising our standards, I'm not necessarily against that, but it's clear that their perspective on higher tiers is contrary to pretty much all staff members who care about such things.
It's not really a discussion rule given that the argumentation is different each time. I believe that taking 3-4 different paths to attempt the same upgrade is evidential of bias (they want L1-C, and will continually attempt different ways to achieve it) but we cannot simply ban any attempts at a Tier 1 upgrade for the verse, only for specific justifications.
Well, I suppose we could but my understanding is that this is not common.
Similar threads
