• 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)

Deagonx said:
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, and a call to arms for collaborative efforts to get CRTs passed. In combination with asking non-VSBW to create accounts here for that purpose
Click to expand...
My "group" has never done this. BT asked a person to not argue against my CRT, however that person logged out of his VSBW account a LONG time ago and can't log back in. He was thinking about coming back but thought against it. BT asked some people for help, yes, but asking for help doesn't equate to asking for agreements. I have asked for help before with the intension of getting input-

Also, we didn't call arms for collaborative efforts to pass the CRTs. What we did was ask those who actually agreed with us, to help us in case of teamups. 1v2 is hardly fair.
Deagonx said:
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.
Click to expand...
Check the screenshots I posted earlier, and please point out where I asked them to comment "agree".
Deagonx said:
More importantly, pretending it never happens at all
Click to expand...
I never pretended anything, and I definitely didn't pretend to not have asked for input.
Deagonx said:
The entire group dogpiled on two wiki management threads for this effort of pretending a false accusation had been made
Click to expand...
This is wrong. In the All Purpose thread, BT was trying to get our threads unlocked.
 
Transcending said:
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-




Click to expand...
Having moments of good doesn’t mean that all the bad is out

That’s like me breaking a bunch of the wiki’s rules but I fixed a few profiles so I’m good
 
Transcending said:
Feel free to show the bad
Click to expand...
Deagonx said:
For obvious reasons, I disagree with the above complaint. I didn't make a false accusation

For context: Beyond_Transcending posted in the General Request thread asking for some closed CRTs by Transcending and Xearsay to be reopened, and in particular made the claim that they had far more agreements than disagreements.

I had/have two objections to this. The first is that this group has been soliciting agrees from friends of theirs on Discord, which might not itself be an issue, but it made the claim of "more agreements than disagreements" seem disingenuous at the very least. To my surprise, instead of admitting that this was happening they claimed I was making a false accusation.

I was a moderator of a discord server that they were in so I have firsthand knowledge that this is the case. Transcending and B_T have asked on multiple occasions for their discord friends to make VSBW user accounts for agreements in threads. I think it's very problematic to lie about this and going as far as to accuse me of making a false accusation in RVR is seriously crossing a line.

BRgbnIt.png

oAnaRfM.png


There are more screenshots of this kind of behavior, but these two are a particularly compelling illustration of it. Lord of Order is Beyond_Transcending and 1.0 is Transcending. They are directly asking people to make/use VSBW accounts and help argue on behalf of his threads. Several of them have in fact made accounts here that have very few posts, most of which are simply saying "I agree" on his threads.

Cat - "Tetrahedron1234" on VSBW, 11 posts, about half of them just say "I agree" on Transcending's threads
Samael89 - "Samael24567" on VSBW, 6 posts, 2 of them are just saying "I agree" on Transcending's threads.
Owner-Sama "Loki" on VSBW, 3 posts, all of them are just saying "I agree" on Transcending's threads.

I reiterate, this may not necessarily be against the rules, but I did not make it up or make a false accusation.

As far as xearsay is concerned, he is not in this discord server so I cannot speak to his direct actions, but I have indirect reasons to believe he's a part of the same situation, from things also said in the Discord and due to the fact that he, along with the duo above, have been aggressively arguing in tandem with eachother on threads.

b8xffK1.jpeg

25wTRzm.jpeg


I do find it odd that, instead of simply admitting that this was occurring and saying it was just collaboration, all of them called me a false accuser and have now gone as far as to bring it up in RVR? If it was really something innocent and collaborative, why lie and try to get me in trouble for bringing it up?

As to this:



I will be the first to admit that things can get tense during a debate and hostility can come out, but I strongly feel in this case that it's being overstated.

This group has been spamming very poorly reasoning DC CRTs for a while now and engaging in tedious bad faith arguments in response to every detractor. I am not the only person to become frustrated.

All in all, I don't think this trio of posters has a valid claim of victimhood or anything like that. Everything I said was the truth and it's pretty clearly evident from their behavior and statements.

Moreover, they arent engaging productively or reasonably on the forum. They have a specific bone to pick and it's been like whack a mole with their CRTs. As soon as one gets rejected another equally poor CRT gets posted, leading to an equally silly debate in which all 3 of them tag-team with tedious nonsense towards anyone who points out the flaws in their arguments.

Anyways, that's all I have to say on the matter. I'm sure they will be trying to make a big thing of this, but I've said my piece and I'll let staff make their decisions.
Click to expand...
You were saying?
 
Transcending said:
I didn't solicit agreements. As I proved in the All-Purpose thread, I asked them to give input, and at times told them to "agree or disagree with a reasoning" or something along those words.

We didn't ask for agreements. Look at your own screenshots. My first two comments were in reference to Cat and BT, both of whom had already agreed with me with their own free will. Even if you ignore what they said on VSBW, they have stated that they personally agree to it outside.

So I asked them if they could argue for me against team ups(because I felt you and Ant were tagging against me). That's all.

As for the other thread, I did ping Cat/Erm, but Cat/Erm had already agreed with the thread by that point, which is why I asked. Homelander-Kun doesn't have an account(I pinged him because he's one of my best friends and I wanted someone to calm me), and the owner powers thing was obviously a joke as he's only the owner of the server.

Also notice how I said "do something" instead of "agree"? I was again, asking for INPUT, not asking for AGREEMENTS, which is the distinction here. Equating asking for input to asking for agreements is terrible logic, I have posted my CRT in the unofficial VSBW server which we both know about. Are you gonna say any agreement I get is invalid because that server contains most people from this website? And I am not the only one who has posted CRTs there btw.

I only ask them to help me in arguments if people team up on me, and if they actually agree with me. This is the key distinction here, I won't deny that I have linked CRTs to people, but I didn't ask them to agree. I asked them to give their input, also giving them the option to disagree. I posted some examples in the All-purpose thread, but here's another- https://media.discordapp.net/attach...24079275659265/Screenshot_20221023-114242.jpg


This is wrong. There are about 20 posts of his, out of which 17 wasn't saying "I agree".

Not exactly. He said "seems legit" to one and said another was valid. His other 4 messages relate to Bleach and other verses. If he wasn't a good member of his own, and just existed to agree with me, he wouldn't have done those.

Sure but I didn't ask him to agree, he did so with his own free will. Here are the screenshots of me asking for input, not agreements-

You did and you are misinterpreting my argument. I never said that I didn't ask people to give input in my threads, I said I didn't ask people to agree with me. Major difference.

All three of your screenshots were addressed by me before. They were all out of context and/or irrelevant



We neither spammed CRTs nor did we do it for a while. Xearsay's Mandrakk CRT came months earlier than my Mandrakk one. My Mandrakk one, Lucifer one, and Xearsay's Source one did come in succession but in the all-purpose thread I explained why that was the case, and 3 threads aren't spamming, especially since we only created a thread after another was locked.

Even if you disagree with our CRTs, think they have poor reasoning, and think we argue in bad faith, that does not give you the right to call us "delusional" and such. It's plain toxicity and insulting.

This is again, a plain disagreement from you. Doesn't give you the right to insult us.
Click to expand...
 
Antvasima said:
That is a good point.
Click to expand...
This group has a habit of spamming a certain narrative so much (and spread across four different users teaming up on each thread) that the truth gets lost in the mix, and I'd hate to see that happen here, so I am going to lay out exactly what was claimed by who and when, and how this group all rejected these as false accusations and have gone as far as to try and get me banned.

This started with you expressing the suspicion that the group was acting in concert with each other, given how quickly they all become involved in team arguments on each CRT. I pointed out that they likely were planning their CRTs together since they all had a group chat, and literally said they posted the link of their CRT in the group chat with Xearsay.

b8xffK1.jpg


Instead of being forthright about this and the nature of it, Transcending demanded proof:

And do you have any proof I asked Xear to participate in my CRTs or that he asked me to participate in his CRTs?
Click to expand...

Yet now, we see that he's even admitting that he did this, but he's just saying it was asking for input. So why lie and pretend it wasn't happening?

Then, this is what I said, this is the "false accusation" I made:

there are several other instances in the server of you guys asking people to comment on CRTs and say they agree, so this aspect of how many agreed vs disagreed seems suspect since you're basically asking your friends to stack the numbers.
Click to expand...

But this isn't a false accusation, there are instances of this. So showing instances in which request for input were made does not make this a false accusation, this provably happened, but instead of admitting it he said this:

It's even more ridiculous how your misinterpret my statements of asking for input to asking for agreements and falsely accusing me
Click to expand...

I didn't misinterpret statements. There are blatant instances of this from both of them.

dQFknAT.jpg


eBASUVB.png

LwUqt2U.png


"The deal was, if I agree to your CRTs, I get to help pre-debate."

"I was scrolling through vsbw" "agree with my CRT" "link it"

"If you make an account to agree with my CRTs, I won't do it"

So, no, I didn't make a false accusation. This is something that happened several times and I was just pointing it out, but they couldn't just be honest about that and they tried to get me banned instead. I never said this is the only thing that ever happened, or that they never just asked for input, but they have deflected with lies and doubt to the full extent that they are able whenever possible instead of being honest.

Prove we ask people to participate in our threads. Okay, now prove we ask them specifically to agree. Okay, but that doesn't count because here are some times we just asked for input.

That's ridiculous and dishonest, and every member of this group participated in pretending that these were false accusations, and all migrated here to participate in this RVR attempt to have me banned for exposing it, because it called into question the legitimacy of their complaint (which relied heavily on pointing out agreements vs disagreements on their CRTs).

The strawman version of these accusations that they keep referencing (the idea I said they never have disagreements, that they don't have free will, that unbiased input has never ever been rquested), have nothing to do with the situation as it actually occurred or what the problem actually is. These are just bad faith deflections meant to draw attention further and further away what actually happened, and what the discussion was actually about.
 
How has Deagonx insulted you and your associates, Transcending? Being blunt in describing what he thinks you are doing, and likely being largely accurate in his assessment, is not the same as using legitimate serious insults.
 
Deagonx said:
This group has a habit of spamming a certain narrative so much (and spread across four different users teaming up on each thread) that the truth gets lost in the mix, and I'd hate to see that happen here, so I am going to lay out exactly what was claimed by who and when, and how this group all rejected these as false accusations and have gone as far as to try and get me banned.

This started with you expressing the suspicion that the group was acting in concert with each other, given how quickly they all become involved in team arguments on each CRT. I pointed out that they likely were planning their CRTs together since they all had a group chat, and literally said they posted the link of their CRT in the group chat with Xearsay.

b8xffK1.jpg


Instead of being forthright about this and the nature of it, Transcending demanded proof:



Yet now, we see that he's even admitting that he did this, but he's just saying it was asking for input. So why lie and pretend it wasn't happening?

Then, this is what I said, this is the "false accusation" I made:



But this isn't a false accusation, there are instances of this. So showing instances in which request for input were made does not make this a false accusation, this provably happened, but instead of admitting it he said this:



I didn't misinterpret statements. There are blatant instances of this from both of them.

dQFknAT.jpg


eBASUVB.png

LwUqt2U.png


"The deal was, if I agree to your CRTs, I get to help pre-debate."

"I was scrolling through vsbw" "agree with my CRT" "link it"

"If you make an account to agree with my CRTs, I won't do it"

So, no, I didn't make a false accusation. This is something that happened several times and I was just pointing it out, but they couldn't just be honest about that and they tried to get me banned instead. I never said this is the only thing that ever happened, or that they never just asked for input, but they have deflected with lies and doubt to the full extent that they are able whenever possible instead of being honest.

Prove we ask people to participate in our threads. Okay, now prove we ask them specifically to agree. Okay, but that doesn't count because here are some times we just asked for input.

That's ridiculous and dishonest, and every member of this group participated in pretending that these were false accusations, and all migrated here to participate in this RVR attempt to have me banned for exposing it, because it called into question the legitimacy of their complaint (which relied heavily on pointing out agreements vs disagreements on their CRTs).

The strawman version of these accusations that they keep referencing (the idea I said they never have disagreements, that they don't have free will, that unbiased input has never ever been rquested), have nothing to do with the situation as it actually occurred or what the problem actually is. These are just bad faith deflections meant to draw attention further and further away what actually happened, and what the discussion was actually about.
Click to expand...
This seems to be a quite serious arguing in bad faith issue, and heavily implies that they have done so elsewhere as well, yes.
 
And I want to point out, the nature of how this discussion about these accusations has progressed over time is identical to how the CRTs go every. Single. Time. Bad-faith deflections away from the actual information, dogpiling with 4 different users commenting over and over, and far-fetched demands for proof of obvious things when any shred of ambiguity can be exploited for the sake of argument.

"But can you prove we asked Xearsay to participate in our CRT?"

As if the very fact that he said he posted the link of the CRT in their group chat with Xearsay is not sufficient evidence of this?!

But seeing an opportunity to exploit the minimal ambiguity that maybe they linked the CRT to a group chat with Xear but didnt ask him to participate (seriously?) is a worthwhile objection instead of just saying, yeah, we work together on CRTs, that's not against the rules.

And that's a model for how this group responses to every piece of information, whether it's about rule violations or comic books, which is why these CRTs have become such a time-wasting nightmare to deal with.
 
Deagonx said:
And I want to point out, the nature of how this discussion about these accusations has progressed over time is identical to how the CRTs go every. Single. Time. Bad-faith deflections away from the actual information, dogpiling with 4 different users commenting over and over, and far-fetched demands for proof of obvious things when any shred of ambiguity can be exploited for the sake of argument.

"Can you prove we asked Xearsay to participate in our CRT?"

As if the very fact that he stated that the link of the CRT was posted in their group chat with Xearsay is not sufficient evidence of this. But seeing an opportunity to exploit the minimal ambiguity that maybe they linked the CRT to a group chat with Xear but didnt ask him to participate (seriously?) is a worthwhile objection instead of just saying, yeah, we work together on CRTs, that's not against the rules.

And that's a model for how this group responses to every piece of information, whether it's about rule violations or comic books, which is why these CRTs have become such a time-wasting nightmare to deal with.
Click to expand...
Yes, I largely agree with this assessment.
 
Antvasima said:
How has Deagonx insulted you and your associates, Transcending? Being blunt in describing what he thinks you are doing, and likely being largely accurate in his assessment, is not the same as using legitimate serious insults.
Click to expand...
Maybe because Deagonx takes out of context screenshots as evidence and then accuses us of false things, is actively being toxic and you're just here agreeing with him? He is not "being "largely accurate" in his assessment, he's just using screenshots that fit into whatever he's doing even when they've been refuted. Apparently we cannot agree to CRT's without being accused of having no freewill in doing so, apparently being in a GC with Xearsay is a problem.
Each of the screenshots he has sent are people who truly agreed before saying "I agree" with whatever CRT.
 
Tetrahedron1234 said:
Maybe because Deagonx takes out of context screenshots as evidence and then accuses us of false things
Click to expand...
I'm so tired of this.

What more context could be added to statements like "the deal was if I agree to your CRT, you'll let me help you pre-debate" that would fundamentally change its meaning?

What more context could be added in showing that someone said "I'm scrolling through VSBW" and TS responds "agree with my CRT?"

More importantly, if all of this was really so innocent, when I pointed out that they likely were collaborating on CRTs because they had a group chat with Xear that they post CRT links in, why demand proof they were asking others to participate only to admit it later? That's incredibly dishonest.

It has happened. It clearly, overtly, blatantly happened. So coming here to RVR to try and get me banned, and hyperfocusing on the fact that sometimes you guys disagree or sometimes ask solely for input instead of agreements does not change the fact that the group has done this, that I didn't make a false accusation, and that this entire RVR thread is predicated upon getting me banned for pointing out that it has happened.

There's no context to be added that can change a phrase like "please don't disagree with [transcending's] CRT" or "if you do this for me, I'll agree with your CRT."

Or phrases like "we all need to work together as a team when we post CRTs to prevent them from getting closed."

If you'd admitted to it, that'd be one thing. Instead you all collectively accused me of making false allegations and tried to get me banned. That's the context.
 
I personally don’t see an issue with getting like minded individuals to input on VBW, even if they are only creating accounts to agree to CRTs they agree with. CRTs are never decided on non-staff FRA spam, and ultimately all that’s really happening is the website is getting more traffic, and the dying DC fandom on this wiki is dying somewhat slower.
 
Hasty12345 said:
I personally don’t see an issue with getting like minded individuals to input on VBW, even if they are only creating accounts to agree to CRTs they agree with
Click to expand...
Oh my goodness. This is not the issue, as I have gone to such extreme lengths to clarify so many times in this thread.
 
I will clarify this hopefully for the last time.

This is not a referendum on whether it's permissible to ask friends to comment on your CRTs, nor even to ask them to join the forum to do so.

We are here because they accused me of making false accusations about them doing so and said I should get banned.

The only reason this concept is relevant at all is because after several of the groups CRTs were closed, one of them posted on the All-purpose request thread asking for them to be re-opened, and specifically highlighted the number of agreements and disagreements.

Ant voiced a suspicion of them working in unison given how similar the arguments were, how they'd all be arguing as a team in every CRT, and they expressed a very harsh reprisal of this suspicion and Ant apologized for the suspicion.

I chimed in that Ant wasn't really wrong to suspect this, since they have a group chat with Xear.

Here's the important part

Instead of being forthcoming about this relationship, Transcending denied ever asking Xear to participate in a CRT, and demanded that I prove otherwise. This is a problem. Why lie about it?

I did prove it by screenshotting a quote where he literally said he put a link to his CRT in a group chat chat Xear and Beyond_Transcending. Then he moves the goalposts and says he did ask them to participate but never asked for agreements overtly, just input.

So I provided instances where, clearly and overtly, agreeing in a CRT was directly asked for, or used as a bargaining chip as part of a deal.

The biggest problem with any of this is not the collaboration, or even necessarily asking for FRAs.

The problem is that all of them, unanimously, accused me of making a false allegation against them in the All-purpose thread, and then came here to echo those sentiments in an explicit attempt to get me banned, despite the fact that I was telling the truth and proved it.

Somewhere along the line, between those 4 users spamming this thread, the focus got shifted away from their blatant lying and underhanded attempt to get me banned, and has turned into some kind of public survey on asking friends to comment on things.

The problem isn't the collaboration. The problem isn't recruiting your friends for FRAs. The problem is them collectively lying about it and trying to get me banned for bringing it up. And to a lesser extent, using those recruited FRAs as a means to make Ant look unreasonable without bring forthcoming about the nature of those FRAs.
 
Beyond_transcending said:
Expect we didn't do something "bad" at least not what Deagon's accusing us of.
Click to expand...
You did exactly what I accused you of, numerous times. Saying that sometimes you did other things does not change that.

I am tired of all the strawmanning of what I said. I never claimed you "didn't have free will" and I never claimed you never disagree with each other. I never claimed you never asked for unbiased input at times.

I said, correctly, that there have been instances of members of this group clearly and overtly asking people to agree on CRTs, discouraging them from disagreeing, and asking people to make VSBW accounts for the specific purpose of agreeing with a CRT.

All of those things happened. Clearly. Instances where this did not happen isn't a rebuttal of that..

Instead of admitting it, you all came here to try and get me banned for bringing it up and continue to claim, despite the vast evidence proving it, that I'm making a false accusation.

It's tedious. What is the point of a conversation with someone dogmatically unwilling to concede to basic reality
 
Hasty12345 said:
I personally don’t see an issue with getting like minded individuals to input on VBW, even if they are only creating accounts to agree to CRTs they agree with. CRTs are never decided on non-staff FRA spam, and ultimately all that’s really happening is the website is getting more traffic, and the dying DC fandom on this wiki is dying somewhat slower.
Click to expand...
Asking people to input and asking people to agree are completely different beasts
 
Deagonx said:
I'm so tired of this.

What more context could be added to statements like "the deal was if I agree to your CRT, you'll let me help you pre-debate" that would fundamentally change its meaning?
Click to expand...
Again, I already agreed with Batman's CRT, I just wasn't willing to help out, so we made a deal. Simple.
Deagonx said:
What more context could be added in showing that someone said "I'm scrolling through VSBW" and TS responds "agree with my CRT?"
Click to expand...
Again, me and Owner-Sama already agreed with the CRT, he just asked us to say our opinion. He knew that we both agrees with his CRT, which is why he said "Agree with my CRT".
Deagonx said:
It has happened. It clearly, overtly, blatantly happened. So coming here to RVR to try and get me banned, and hyperfocusing on the fact that sometimes you guys disagree or sometimes ask solely for input instead of agreements does not change the fact that the group has done this, that I didn't make a false accusation, and that this entire RVR thread is predicated upon getting me banned for pointing out that it has happened.
Click to expand...
We reported because you were and still are making false accusations about us by using out of context and misinterpreted screenshots. Also, who even leaked the screenshots from that server to you?
Deagonx said:
There's no context to be added that can change a phrase like "please don't disagree with [transcending's] CRT" or "if you do this for me, I'll agree with your CRT."
Click to expand...
Your screenshots don't say "please don't disagree with my CRT" anywhere, but I already addressed the second part. I agreed with his CRT, but I wasn't willing to give input.
Deagonx said:
Or phrases like "we all need to work together as a team when we post CRTs to prevent them from getting closed."
Click to expand...
What's wrong with defending each other's points?
Deagonx said:
If you'd admitted to it, that'd be one thing. Instead you all collectively accused me of making false allegations and tried to get me banned. That's the context.
Click to expand...
You still are making false accusations.
 
Beyond_transcending said:
I just wasn't willing to help out, so we made a deal.
Click to expand...
So you made a deal which involved quid pro quo for you commenting your agreement on a CRT.

Great. Then we completely agree that you all did exactly what I said you did.

I am not claiming that these agreements were insincere, only that they were clearly solicited, requested, and bargained for. But since you bring it up:

mCECpla.jpeg


Beyond_transcending said:
Also, who even leaked the screenshots from that server to you?
Click to expand...
I was literally a mod in the server. I took the screenshots myself.

Beyond_transcending said:
Your screenshots don't say "please don't disagree with my CRT" anywhere
Click to expand...
ImUvurQ.jpeg


Beyond_transcending said:
What's wrong with defending each other's points?
Click to expand...
It's not about it being wrong. It's about all of you blatantly lying about it and trying to get me banned for exposing it.
 
Last edited:
So you made a deal which involved quid pro quo for you commenting your agreement on a CRT.
Click to expand...
You ignored where Beyond Transcending says he agreed beforehand.
Great. Then we completely agree that you all did exactly what I said you did.
Click to expand...
We don't agree with you.
I was literally a mod in the server. I took the screenshots myself.
Click to expand...
To give a overview of how you take screenshots out of context, the screenshot that you sent of beyond transcending say "Don't argue against master's CRT plz." He was talking to a person that literally never contributed(by contributed I mean saying "I agree with this CRT) to Transcending's CRTs.
Plus Transcending already refuted this screenshot by saying: "BT asked a person to not argue against my CRT, however that person logged out of his VSBW account a LONG time ago and can't log back in. He was thinking about coming back but thought against it." But you ignored it so you can go back to your agenda of us discouraging others of not disagreeing with CRT's.
 
I am tired of going in circles about obvious evidence and receiving far-fetched excuses for dozens of screenshots implicating this group. The mods have enough information to make their decisions at this point.
 
Deagonx said:
I am tired of going in circles about obvious evidence and receiving far-fetched excuses for dozens of screenshots implicating this group. The mods have enough information to make their decisions at this point.
Click to expand...
And here we are, constantly refuting your "obvious evidence" and how in reality it is out of context, but of course. You'll sit here and ignore that and complain.
 
Tetrahedron1234 said:
And here we are, constantly refuting your "obvious evidence" and how in reality it is out of context, but of course.
Click to expand...
Right, really compelling refutations like "that one was as joke" and "well he said that to someone who hadn't agreed with Transcendings CRTs before" and "sure we made a deal to have me make an account here and agree with his CRT in exchange for something else, but I genuinely agreed with his opinions!"
 
Deagonx said:
Right, really compelling refutations like "that one was as joke" and "well he said that to someone who hadn't agreed with Transcendings CRTs before" and "sure we made a deal to have me make an account here and agree with his CRT in exchange for something else, but I genuinely agreed with his opinions!"
Click to expand...
Because it was really a joke. I won't agree with all of his CRT's because of one single Pokemon who wasn't even level 50 at that time.
 
Deagonx said:
Right, really compelling refutations like "that one was as joke" and "well he said that to someone who hadn't agreed with Transcendings CRTs before" and "sure we made a deal to have me make an account here and agree with his CRT in exchange for something else, but I genuinely agreed with his opinions!"
Click to expand...
Making fun of the refutations doesn't undermine them, beyond transcending was joking about the Pokemon thing, but you took it as evidence anyways so you can come here and create false accusations for everyone to see.
Before Transcending even tells someone to agree with his CRT, he makes sure the person actually agrees with his CRT...
The other screenshot that I mentioned that you took out of context, was Beyond Transcending talking to a person who has never contributed to Transcending's CRTS and a person who can't even log back into his VSBW account. Funny isn't it.
 
Alright, I took the time to read the longer posts here and try to get an idea of what the hell is going on.

Deagon is absolutely in the right here. Light toxicity is more or less to be expected in any heated discussion, and I can't hold it against him when he can see behind the scenes where his opposition is using dishonest practices to get a lead in a thread. I don't know that this would have even turned into a rule violation report if one hadn't been leveled against him first, but I'm glad it did.

The way these "like minded individuals" were gathered is clearly in such a way that those gathering them are steering their votes. Furthermore, given many of them posted simply "I agree", we can infer their motives.

Personally, I'm of the mindset that Tetrahedron, Transcending and their friends have broken rules here in rounding up votes in this specific method. It's a particularly grievous thing to try to overcome our democratic process. I'm advocating a ban, down to discuss the length. I'd also point out that spamming the RvT is considered a rule violation, and that the story is more or less known at this point.
 
Thank you for taking the time to properly evaluate this, Bambu.

The main group here that keeps spamming and stonewalling DC Comics revision threads, and attacking Deagonx, seems to consist of Xearsay, Transcending, and Beyond_transcending, but I may have forgotten somebody.

You and other administrators will have to decide their ban lengths though, as I am an involved party.
 
Antvasima said:
The main group here that keeps spamming and stonewalling DC Comics revision threads seems to consist of Xearsay, Transcending, and Beyond_transcending, but I may have forgotten somebody.
Click to expand...
The only additional people on top of that, involved in this situation, are the people that came from their Discord. Namely Tetrahedron1234, Samael24567, and Loki.

Of those 3, only Tetrahedron has been actively problematic in the CRTs and report threads. The other 2 have clearly been commenting a few "I agrees" for the group, but other than that seem mostly harmless and they will probably not create further issue once it's made clear that this sort of quid pro quo CRT behavior is not something they should engage in.
 
Antvasima said:
Would you be willing to help evaluate this issue please? You can start reading here if you wish:
Click to expand...
Asking some people offsite to weigh in on something shouldn't be ban worthy in my view. They might not have noticed it or something akin to that.

If the other user just coached them to agree or just ask them for something akin to a FRA, sure a temp-ban is warranted since the site more or less relies on a degree of mob-Democracy to get most revisions through.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
32 33 34
Replies
1K
Views
99K
Elizhaa
Elizhaa
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Sticky
Extremely important announcements for our community
Replies
31
Views
5K
Agnaa
Agnaa
  • Locked
Clarification Of Sentence Phrasings And Addition Of Expected Punishments For Each Type Of Rule Breach For All Rules Pages
Replies
21
Views
2K
Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer
AThe1412
Can you restrict a character's Standard Equipment if it gives them a different tier?
Replies
2
Views
547
TheGreatJedi13
TheGreatJedi13
Back
Top