- 7,632
- 14,206
Rightfully so. Even among the staff members that have disagreed with splitting the cosmology there is still recognition that this is an issue, the only disagreement is how best to handle it.
-
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
Transcending
He/Him- 1,998
- 1,525
So you think him being toxic against us is perfectly within the rules?
Which is YOUR opinion. You didn't wait for ANY othed staff member to come and even AFTER I told you other staff were interested, you refused. You even rejected the 48 hours deal.
- 1,278
- 1,024
Thing is, most of these threads if I recollect were using specific writer cosmologies.
Transcending
He/Him- 1,998
- 1,525
You guys constantly say the revisions are coming soon, but they never are
- 181
- 278
Exactly
- 7,632
- 14,206
No one said that. At all. This is what is meant by "arguing in bad faith." This is an egregious mischaracterization of what was said.
- 7,632
- 14,206
This is the rule violation report thread. It is not yet another venue for your group to argue about DC. Good grief. You are polluting another forum management thread with irrelevant nonsense.
The only reason we are here is to address this claim that I've made a false accusation and broken rules. Not about whether or not your CRTs should've been closed.
The only reason we are here is to address this claim that I've made a false accusation and broken rules. Not about whether or not your CRTs should've been closed.
Transcending
He/Him- 1,998
- 1,525
Calling people delusional is not toxic now?
- 7,632
- 14,206
No one said this. Good grief.
Transcending
He/Him- 1,998
- 1,525
You did imply it by saying it was an egregious mischaracterization of what was said
Transcending
He/Him- 1,998
- 1,525
You do realize we didn't start arguing about our threads? Others did.
- 10,377
- 17,557
Yeah this isn't the thread to continue y'all personal beef with this DC/Marvel shit, this thread is specifically for reporting rule violations, so unless this comic book conversation is extremely pertinent to the initial report made by Transcending it should stop.
@Antvasima you should contact other mods and see what their opinion is about this entire situation, since this is needlessly filling up RvR with seemingly unrelated messages to the original report. So the quicker this report gets resolved the less unrelated, future messages about this topic are made.
@Antvasima you should contact other mods and see what their opinion is about this entire situation, since this is needlessly filling up RvR with seemingly unrelated messages to the original report. So the quicker this report gets resolved the less unrelated, future messages about this topic are made.
Transcending
He/Him- 1,998
- 1,525
Anyway, let's get back to the relevant matter.
The first two screenshots were in relation to this CRT- https://vsbattles.com/threads/batman-ability-additions.137466/
The only reason I went to ask was because of how dead the thread was. It extended for months. However, the people I asked did agree with it with their own free will, which is why I asked to state their opinion.
The third and fourth screenshots are irrelevant, not sure why you posted those, but BD said those, and BD himself gave a valid response to you.
The last screenshot, now that I look again, was stated by BD not me, but I think I defended BD quite well earlier. Everything else was addressed by me before-
Transcending
He/Him- 1,998
- 1,525
All the screenshots have been addressed thoroughly before, at this point you are spamming them.From my perspective, I do not believe their collaborative efforts are inherently a problem as many users do that. I also don't think the way they engage in discussions is per se rulebreaking as they're far from the only group of users to do so.
However, I did think that using # of agreements as a key part of a complaint about the threads being closed seems problematic given the fact that they are soliciting FRAs from their discord friends. I also think they should not have hijacked the General Request thread as a venue for their frustration about their CRTs failing.
More importantly, the decision to pretend they haven't been collaborating for FRAs in Discord when they plainly have, and for all of them to pretend they're being falsely accused of something and bringing me up in the RVR thread, is a serious issue in my opinion.
And over the long run, this game of whack-a-mole with sub-par CRTs and bad faith arguing is becoming a significant time-waster for DC-involved members, amplified by the fact that they are convincing their Discord friends to make accounts here to support their threads and to argue on their behalf at times.
Whatever the decision is, I'm fine with it, but I am especially concerned about this collective response to pretend a false accusation has been made rather than just admit they've been working together to get CRTs passed.
However, I would like to address the last part of this post-
If those people did actually agree with the CRT, there's absolutely no issue here. The only difference is that I linked them the CRT, would you say they would have disagreed if they just stumbled upon it? No. The outcome is the same, and asking people for input has been something that has been done for years, usually via message walls.
- 165,863
- 73,574
- Thread starter
- #15,095
As mentioned earlier, I have not noticed him being toxic to a reportable degree.
I thought that I called for several knowledgeable members, including staff, but that none of them showed up, and that I then closed the first thread after lots and lots of circular arguing, which lead to me closing the thread.
After that I was sick and tired of having to excessively deal with it, so I didn't think that it seemed like a good idea to reopen the thread in question.
And after that I was told that the two new threads were mainly rehashing old arguments from the first one, so I closed them as well. I also think that they popped up at the entirely wrong time, would likely create chaos, and are better left for later.
We would get a lot more free time to make the final finishing touches if we would not be forced to spend so much time on related threads that your group created in conjunction.
Last edited:
- 165,863
- 73,574
- Thread starter
- #15,096
Yes. I will do so. Let's wait to see what they think.
@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack
Would you be willing to help evaluate this issue please? You can start reading here if you wish:
- 30,463
- 32,352
I do not care about that DC revisions myself too much; but I do overall think Deagonx has been fairly harmless here. And between the sides, his evidence seems to support him in terms of which one actually did something wrong. Albeit I don't think anyone did anything bad worthy; asking your friends to kudos you isn't exactly ban worthy offense though it can be seen as a bad influence and a sign of mobbing though not exactly evidence of one.
- 7,632
- 14,206
I will add, their attempt to explain away the numerous instances of this behavior for this group to pretend they haven't engaged in this is not compelling to me.
To be clear, there a couple things we know for a fact.
1) Several of their discord friends made accounts at their request, and who have an extremely short post history with a significant chunk being very low-effort FRA comments in support of the groups CRTs. Xear has engaged in this as well.
2) At various times in the server, agreement with CRTs has been described as a bargaining chip, agreement has been directly asked for, and disagreement has been directly discouraged.
I am not overlooking the fact that there are disagreements at times amongst the group nor suggesting they didn't agree of their own accord, but to pretend the group hasn't done these things and that it's solely been innocent requests for unbiased input is just provably false.
3) These very same agreements that came from their Discord friends were used, in a forum management thread, to manufacture a sort of casus belli against Ant for closing their CRTs, depicting them as widely agreed upon. I felt that this was problematic and wanted to address the fact that the authenticity of this consensus is suspect.
4) Instead of being honest about this collaboration, the request thread turned into a dogpile from the same usual culprits, claiming I was falsely accusing them, and bringing up the same arguments that were central to the CRTs. Now going as far as to make an RVR report to the same effect, with this same group of users once again creating drama and dog piling myself and Ant.
This is not mature behavior. There's clear and overt collaboration and this all could've been avoided if that basic fact was simply admitted to instead of turning this into a circus.
Asking your friends to comment on your CRTs? Not necessarily a bad thing.
Asking non-users to create accounts for the explicit purpose of doing so? Suspicious but not rulebreaking as far as I know.
Using those agreements to paint an Admin in a bad light on a wiki management thread? To me that's problematic.
The entire group claiming to have been falsely accused and all of them dogpiling the RVR thread to get me punished for exposing it? To me that's a very big issue.
To be clear, there a couple things we know for a fact.
1) Several of their discord friends made accounts at their request, and who have an extremely short post history with a significant chunk being very low-effort FRA comments in support of the groups CRTs. Xear has engaged in this as well.
2) At various times in the server, agreement with CRTs has been described as a bargaining chip, agreement has been directly asked for, and disagreement has been directly discouraged.
I am not overlooking the fact that there are disagreements at times amongst the group nor suggesting they didn't agree of their own accord, but to pretend the group hasn't done these things and that it's solely been innocent requests for unbiased input is just provably false.
3) These very same agreements that came from their Discord friends were used, in a forum management thread, to manufacture a sort of casus belli against Ant for closing their CRTs, depicting them as widely agreed upon. I felt that this was problematic and wanted to address the fact that the authenticity of this consensus is suspect.
4) Instead of being honest about this collaboration, the request thread turned into a dogpile from the same usual culprits, claiming I was falsely accusing them, and bringing up the same arguments that were central to the CRTs. Now going as far as to make an RVR report to the same effect, with this same group of users once again creating drama and dog piling myself and Ant.
This is not mature behavior. There's clear and overt collaboration and this all could've been avoided if that basic fact was simply admitted to instead of turning this into a circus.
Asking your friends to comment on your CRTs? Not necessarily a bad thing.
Asking non-users to create accounts for the explicit purpose of doing so? Suspicious but not rulebreaking as far as I know.
Using those agreements to paint an Admin in a bad light on a wiki management thread? To me that's problematic.
The entire group claiming to have been falsely accused and all of them dogpiling the RVR thread to get me punished for exposing it? To me that's a very big issue.
Last edited:
- 9,934
- 10,734
This seems to be a more of a personal issue than something that concerns wiki, working in group for a project or crt, I don't think this is something specific to few people's, though in a way can be unfair to someone. Same with deagonx case, he did nothing wrong as per our wiki rules but it as well may seems unfair to opposition who is unhappy with their private convo being shared, so maintain the privacy? but it's yet again not something that concerns wiki, wiki is not to solve the personal issues or bound to maintain privacy of private servers on some random social media or discord, So both of these issues are non of wiki business.
Main problem here is arguementum infinitum that happens on crt's alot. Just keep arguing without being honest to each other arguements is not a healthy debate and it turns toxic in the lack of tie breaker or someone knowledgeable to judge. This is the only problem I can see that maybe something which concern wiki. I guess there is already a list of knowledagle member? Asking them to participate can sort this problem out.
Main problem here is arguementum infinitum that happens on crt's alot. Just keep arguing without being honest to each other arguements is not a healthy debate and it turns toxic in the lack of tie breaker or someone knowledgeable to judge. This is the only problem I can see that maybe something which concern wiki. I guess there is already a list of knowledagle member? Asking them to participate can sort this problem out.
- 7,632
- 14,206
To be clear, this was a discord server with 100 or so members, not private DMs or anything like that.
- 165,863
- 73,574
- Thread starter
- #15,102
I think that I already asked many knowledgeable members to comment in the original now closed thread mentioned here, but that they did not show up. Then again, I may misremember and have messed up in that regard. I have a massive amount of work to try to keep track of.
Transcending
He/Him- 1,998
- 1,525
This is not true. For example, in Tetra's case, he only did the "I agree" thing about 3 times, and there were 17+ times where he didn't do that.
Xearsay also actually agrees with it with his own free will- https://media.discordapp.net/attach...53607444635658/Screenshot_20221023-201725.jpg
I do not know why you are still posting the first two screenshots, despite the fact we addressed them. Those people too, actually agreed with their own free will, no one was forced. You are also forgetting the fact those are old, and if those two screenshots are all you have, that's very weak argument against the countless screenshots I have shown about me asking for input, and even telling them they can disagree.
The last screenshot has also been addressed before. We work as a team, when we all agree on the point with our own free will, to combat people teaming up on us. For example, in the Barbatos thread, you and Ant teamed up against me.
I explained before how, there's no problem if they agree with their own free will-
Not true. In two of the 3 threads, we said the agreements and disagreements were similar. In the one of them in which we did have a majority, again, they agreed with their own free will. Plus people, who aren't part of our "group" gave their agreements as well.
Transcending
He/Him- 1,998
- 1,525
The server is a private server if you didn't know
- 9,934
- 10,734
I see, regardless it's not something that concerns wiki. Many things turns out to be fair to someone or unfair to other. It's just not the right place for these issues which has been raised because wiki can't go around stopping ppl from sharing discord SS or stop ppl from working on projects.
- 7,632
- 14,206
What I want to make very clear is that I am not primarily concerned about them collaborating on threads. It is how things spiraled out from there I find problematic:
I am hoping that my objections aren't misunderstood as being directed at the collaboration itself or asking their friends to comment. If this discussion morphs into an assessment of exclusively whether or not asking friends to comment on CRT is a problem, it will be missing the forest for the trees.
- 9,934
- 10,734
This is the only issue here, a debate w/o tie breaker or knowledagle member to sort out stuff can get toxic as time goes on, maintaining a healthy debate is as well not a easy task for even members for prolonged period of time. So keeping aside all things this should be the issue to be discussed than accusing each other unnecessarily.
I did taken it into account and said that this collaboration can be unfair for someone. I didn't mean that you are saying it's unfair or anything but just that it's not a wiki issue or anything above about you two is against rules or report worthy. I am not accusing anyone for anything but just that it has nothing to do with wiki, So we can stop with any further personal issues.
- 165,863
- 73,574
- Thread starter
- #15,109
I just checked and I did call for several knowledgeable members and wait afterwards. I should probably have asked for more of them though, but as I said in a preceding post, I had spammed quite a lot of notification messages very close to this, so I was likely rather uneasy with it at the time.
Transcending
He/Him- 1,998
- 1,525
But I asked them, and they were interested. You only had to wait
Transcending
He/Him- 1,998
- 1,525
That's not what happened. They gave valid agreements out of their own free will. After that, none of us used those agreements to paint Ant in such a bad light, we said it was closed unfairly, with the primary reason being that the staff members would have come soon. Is waiting really a big problem?
By claiming I was trying to get them to agree with my CRTs, rather than simply ask for input, you DID falsely accuse us. Exposing false accusations is valid.
- 165,863
- 73,574
- Thread starter
- #15,112
I already did wait though, and after I eventually closed the thread, I sent a private apology message to you for likely being too rude and suspicious earlier. Then you asked me to reopen the thread, but I was sick and tired of having to waste time there at the time, and also did not want it to force us to spend lots of time rewriting the premises for our upcoming cosmology revision thread when we were finally beginning to wrap it up after 2 years of preparations.
Transcending
He/Him- 1,998
- 1,525
Yes, but during that time I didn't actually message them myself. They only got your pings.
With a 48 hour time limit
Which is why I said you didn't have to waste your time there. I wouldn't have put up an argument or bumped, we would have only waited. I specified all this in our 48 hour deal
- 165,863
- 73,574
- Thread starter
- #15,114
Well, there was a screencapture of one of you wanting to see me demoted and then to gloat about it, and news flash, although I only mention this when confronted about the issue, this wiki would most likely have stayed at 1/100th its current popularity and 1/1000th its current quality, and not had a functioning forum either, if I had not been here working so extremely hard as a force of maintenance and organisation for almost 9 years now.
In addition, I do not personally get anything tangible out of working here so much year in and year out. No financial compensation, and no true joy either. Maybe a slight feeling of accomplishment. I strictly do it out of a sense of necessity, duty, responsibility, trying to provide a safe haven for our members, a reliable fun information resource for our visitors, helping out and taking care of members who approach me with their genuine problems, and that's it.
If I got fired, I would likely be much better off on a personal level, as I would get enormously much more free time for exercise, reading, meditation, dogs, nature excursions, etc.
So again, this genuinely isn't a me me me me me power-tripping issue in my particular case, even though it may be hard to relate to.
However, I do have other character flaws that cause problems at times. I somewhat lack social common sense, so drama situations are hard for me to figure out how to solve properly, even though I have grown better at handling them. I recurrently get stressed out, impatient, and irritable when I am overworked and have to focus too much on many issues at ones, such as in intense arguments. And I have a compulsive autistic fixation on matter-of-fact honest accuracy as I perceive it, which can make me singleminded in this regard.
Last edited:
Transcending
He/Him- 1,998
- 1,525
That's not related to the All Purpose thread, since it happened on Discord.
A tip though? Wait for multiple staff disagreements next time before locking a thread.
A tip though? Wait for multiple staff disagreements next time before locking a thread.
- 7,632
- 14,206
I agree. This is the biggest issue. If I had to order it in priority these are my biggest issues, from most important to least important.
1) The group using RVR on false pretenses to get me banned
2) General dishonesty about the nature of the collaboration and refusal to be forthright with it. Especially in using it against Ant in a wiki management thread
3) Using wiki management forums to bicker about the same topics that concluded in CRTs.
Less importantly
4) General stonewalling and bad faith arguing with spammed DC CRTs every week.
Transcending
He/Him- 1,998
- 1,525
Seriously dude? Look, I will post some screenshots here. You tell me yourself if I asked my "group" to agree with me or simply asked them for input-
- 7,632
- 14,206
Instances of you asking for input do not change the fact that the group has, at various times, overtly asked for agreements, using agreement with CRTs as a bargaining chip, discouraged disagreements on CRTs, and a call to arms for collaborative efforts to get CRTs passed. In combination with asking non-VSBW discord users to create accounts here for that purpose.
No one is saying the group never has discussions or that it's just a constant thing of you telling everyone to comment "agree" and nothing else. It is being pointed out though that this is something that has happened.
More importantly, pretending it never happens at all and trying to get me banned for pointing it out is seriously problematic. The entire group dogpiled on two wiki management threads for this effort of pretending a false accusation had been made.
Similar threads
