• 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)

Xearsay said:
You can entertain the possibilities of what someone could be doing all you want. Literally the only thing that matters is whether you have proof that I actually did these things. And as of right now, my discord messages from the group chat that were posted by Transcending directly prove I wasn’t involved in any recruiting.


I barely defended them in this thread. Same with the all purpose thread. I only made a few comments in the beginning towards Ant about my threads being locked. The heavy accusation flinging that happened later I didn’t even partake in.

As I said before I was very busy with family matters during the time all this stuff went down. The idea that I was “stubbornly” defending them is a pure exaggeration.
Click to expand...
Decided to make a edit on the “stubbornly defend” since I choose to take a reread of the previous pages. Nonetheless, you still did defend them.

In any case, I say we should actually make the staff offer their input since this has dragged on longer than needed in this case.

Also you can not ignore the other evidence that @Deagonx did provided, but I let the other staff member handled it.
 
Deagonx said:
They prove no such thing. It would've been trivial to delete or omit any messages that actually implicated you, and you all have shown a willingness to lie.
Click to expand...
The discord screenshots showing my history aren’t fake. However if you have proof they are please post it.

Deagonx said:
So I really don’t see the point in lying to act like we’ve been conspiring to get threads passed.

Yes, you did partake in it. You accused me of lying the same way that they did, and participated here as well when they tried to get me banned for the very lying you accused me of.
Click to expand...
First of all I made the comment you quoted in the beginning of that thread. Second, I made that comment because at the time before all of this evidence was posted I had no clue they were doing this. And lastly, I’ve only made a couple comments here and all of them have been defending myself.
 
Can you guys already drop this back and forth and let the staff decide? It's already getting boring, this spamming, all this business of giving proof, etc was done at the beginning and now everything is a continuous spam. Each time this continues = circular argument and an endless loop.
Robo said:
oh my god just ban xearsay already!!!! ok bye.
Click to expand...
Also unnecesary comment and most likely it will be deleted, don't comment here if you have nothing relevant to add here and this going for all who comment here without saying nothing relevant to this.
 
Xearsay said:
These aren’t fake. However if you have proof they are please post it.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the kind of dishonesty I'm talking about. I didn't say they were "fake." I said it would be trivial to omit or delete any of the messages that incriminated you, so the screenshots do not mean anything as you have all demonstrated a willingness to lie.
 
Deagonx said:
This is exactly the kind of dishonesty I'm talking about. I didn't say they were "fake." I said it would be trivial to omit or delete any of the messages that incriminated you, so the screenshots do not mean anything as you have all demonstrated a willingness to lie.
Click to expand...
I guess I made a mistake in reading. However this is still an assumption as there’s no proof that they deleted any comments I made. I’m also barely active in their group chat so I remember most of the comments I’ve made and none of them seem to be missing.
 
It is not the wiki's place to dictate beliefs, regardless of their departure from our own. However, actions taken by users based on those beliefs are punishable for making the wiki a marginally worse place for any targeted users.

I'd like it to be clear that we cannot gallivant around banning people for disagreeing with us on this topic or the other. Action ought to be taken only if actions are performed, not based on beliefs.

EDIT: To be absolutely clear, that's offensive and antagonizing shit that got posted to that wall. I do agree with a ban. I'd just like to make it clear why I agree with a ban.
 
I also definitely agree with a ban, as this was a blatant hate-comment, but I am uncertain for how long, as the member in question said that the pride month is shit, not that everybody who participate in it are shit. It was deleted by the offender afterwards, so that might mitigate the ban length, but I do not know here either. Further staff imput, especially from administrators, would be very appreciated.

Anyway, regarding Transcending, Xearsay, Beyond_transcending, and the rest of their group, I have had bad experiences with them seemingly engaging in dishonest arguments and extreme stonewalling complete unreasonability regarding DC Comics in the past, which is the same kind of double-faced behaviour that they engaged in here: Accuse any opposition of doing what they are doing, or portray themselves as victims and create lots of drama if somebody voices suspicions.

As such, I think that the best solution would likely be to give all of them permanent topic bans, and the ones who were directly involved with trying to get Deagonx banned on false premises, temporarily banned themselves for a few months in addition to that.
 
Antvasima said:
I also definitely agree with a ban, as this was a blatant hate-comment, but I am uncertain for how long, as the member in question said that the pride month is shit, not that everybody who participate in it are shit. It was deleted by the offender afterwards, so that might mitigate the ban length, but I do not know here either. Further staff imput, especially from administrators, would be very appreciated.
Click to expand...
At least a month should be fine.
 
Antvasima said:
Anyway, regarding Transcending, Xearsay, Beyond_transcending, and the rest of their group, I have had bad experiences with them seemingly engaging in dishonest arguments and extreme stonewalling complete unreasonability regarding DC Comics in the past, which is the same kind of double-faced behaviour that they engaged in here: Accuse any opposition of doing what they are doing, or portray themselves as victims and create lots of drama if somebody voices suspicions.

As such, I think that the best solution would likely be to give all of them permanent topic bans, and the ones who were directly involved with trying to get Deagonx banned on false premises, temporarily banned themselves for a few months in addition to that.
Click to expand...
Not to move past the other issue (I agree with at least a month, that seems fine), but I'd like to deal with this too, aye.

I can't really speak on these new accusations without proper evidence, so do you have some, Ant? Their recent behavior may imply a willingness to do such things but I'd like to see the pattern proven before acting on it.
 
I strongly doubt an explanation is needed, none of us are confused as to what it was he was doing. But, by all means, @PairusDragonoid Want to elaborate at all?
 
I don't believe it's within anyone's suggestion that we ban people strictly for disagreeing with beliefs, it's not thought policing we are doing to condemn extremely hateful commentary - we are well within our rights to remove something of that caliber.

A ban is in order, of course.

In regards to getting them to explain themselves, they already gave their beliefs rather unprompted so I'm uncertain as what getting them to clarify would do besides affirm what we are already thinking on the subject matter. They are free to obviously, it just seems like a puzzling ask.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
Not to move past the other issue (I agree with at least a month, that seems fine), but I'd like to deal with this too, aye.

I can't really speak on these new accusations without proper evidence, so do you have some, Ant? Their recent behavior may imply a willingness to do such things but I'd like to see the pattern proven before acting on it.
Click to expand...
It happened a while ago, so my memories are fuzzy about it, but I had to deal with lots of attack posts and toxicity directed towards me a while back because I pointed out that they seemed to have misrepresented evidence at times in various DC Comics related discussion threads.

Would you be willing to help out with clarifications please, @Deagonx ?
 
Last edited:
Pikaman said:
“A ******* month for this ******* shit” is most definitely targeted towards the LGBTQIA+ Community, with “this ******* shit” obviously referring to them
Click to expand...
That may very well be, but he did not say so outright, so we do not know for certain.

Maybe he was mainly frustrated by that he thinks that the celebration should just be for one or a few days like for the festivities of other groupings in society (1 month of celebrations for each community would take up too much time for practical reasons though), rather than actually hating the participants? Again, we do not know for certain.
 
Abstractions said:
I don't believe it's within anyone's suggestion that we ban people strictly for disagreeing with beliefs, it's not thought policing we are doing to condemn extremely hateful commentary - we are well within our rights to remove something of that caliber.

A ban is in order, of course.
Click to expand...
Yes, agreed. The question is how severe we should consider the transgression to be in relation to our ban lengths.
 
I think his statement was clearly against the celebration and the people partaking. As I said, I can't imagine there's anything he can say that would change the context of the deleted post, but if we all want to wait about for him to speak, then I shan't complain (too much).

Damage suggested a one-month ban. I'm fine with that. Bring the hammer down harder if he continues afterwards, maybe just bring the hammer down for good.
 
Well, I am uncertain if 1, 2, or 3 months would be most appropriate, but he did delete the comment, and did not direct it against any other specific member, which likely mitigates the transgression.
 
ByAsura said:
Wouldn't this deleted message wall comment (the first one) be grounds for a permaban?
Click to expand...
I cannot see that message wall for some reason; I can't see walls of permabanned users I know. But I thought I should at least be able to see things other Admins can see at minimum. But only Bureaucrats can see walls of permabanned users.

But anyway, I do agree with permanent ban. All he's doing is dumping on Pride Month for no reason other than what could be seen as blatant LGBTQ+ Phobia. And deleting as a weak attempt to hide it is not a good excuse. Permaban away if that hasn't been applied already.
 
Well 1 month seems a bit too lenient, but permanent seems too harsh. I don't have strong opinions about the issue though, as he isn't a longterm productive member as far as I am aware.
 
If anyone wants to apply a different ban time, I won't object. I just applied a month because of the mitigating factor of them deleting their comment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
15 16 17
Replies
647
Views
44K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Mr. Bambu
Slight Adjustment to Rules Regarding Original Works
2
Replies
67
Views
5K
Mr. Bambu
Mr. Bambu
A minor addition about discussion rules
Replies
3
Views
231
Tdjwo
Tdjwo
  • Locked
Regarding the Rule Violations Report Thread
2
Replies
71
Views
6K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
H3110l12345I20
IRL Paper has a profile.
Replies
30
Views
2K
James_Plays_4_Games
James_Plays_4_Games
Back
Top