Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I wasn't talking about Transcending, Xearsay, and what not when I said "Permaban" but the guy who posted the borderline homophobic post. And has apparently done so twice in a row; first in 2021 then in 2022.

As for them (The small group of DC fans attacking Deagon), I'm not entirely certain but I think I only agreed with some short bans as well as some long term topic bans.

 

[Xearsay]

I wasn't talking about Transcending, Xearsay, and what not when I said "Permaban" but the guy who posted the borderline homophobic post. And has apparently done so twice in a row; first in 2021 then in 2022.

As for them (The small group of DC fans attacking Deagon), I'm not entirely certain but I think I only agreed with some short bans as well as some long term topic bans.

Why am I being brought back up again? I already proved that I’m not a part of this. It doesn’t make any sense to punish me for the actions of other people.

 

[Deagonx]

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.

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.

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 ?

I will do my best to clarify, but I will say up front it is not as easy to establish this sort of thing with the kind of "smoking gun" evidence that was provided for their vote manipulation and subsequent lying about it. After all, how do you prove an argument is dishonest, and is there an objective measure of an argument being "unreasonable?"

To the point of misrepresenting evidence, I believe that much is more straightforward, but in the same manner as what occurred in this thread, every time the claim is made that they are deliberately misrepresenting evidence, they aggressively rebuke it and make counter-accusations of toxicity for implying dishonesty in the first place.

For unreasonability, I can speak to a few specific instances that I find compelling as examples of this behavior, and I emphasize the fact that the reason this has become an issue as Ant describes above is because these examples are a template for how this group responds to any and all information that is inconvenient to the conclusion they want to reach with their CRT, with Transcending and Xearsay making all of the CRTs that the four of them all focused on.

In a recent thread aimed at downgrading Lucifer Morningstar, a significant portion of the discussion revolved around the tier of a being called The Presence, who is also called the Source. For the purpose of this discussion, they are considered as equal to eachother. Some information was presented that, by my assessment, strongly support the Source scaling above a race of beings called "the Supercelestials" which would've rebutted that aspect of their argument. The information is as follows:

1) The Supercelestials do the bidding of the Source, and act based on it's judgment, to such an extent that at his command, they use energy from the Source to create multiverses in the "Overvoid", and then die, and let their energies return to the Source, who sits at the centre of the Overvoid.

2) We do not have direct knowledge of how the Supercelestials came into existence, but given the above, it is most likely that the Source created them.

3) One Supercelestial said -- as an explanation for why she is creating a multiverse -- that she "hopes to please the Source of her power" with Source in bold.

I felt strongly that the aggregate of this information paints an extremely clear picture that the Presence/Source scales above the Supercelestials, so I was surprised to receive the following counter-arguments to each claim:

1) The fact that they do his bidding doesn't mean he scales above them, because humans can have bosses they work for who aren't stronger than them. When I objected that the social context of human society and employee is not really applicable to a super-deity who commands beings to die for the sake of creating multiverses, it was demanded that I provide a thorough explanation for why.

2) It was argued that the most probable explanation for the Supercelestials existence was that they created themselves/came into existence from nothing and the fact that they do the bidding of the Presence/Source doesn't mean it created them. Specifically the example was given that Jason Momoa can hire bodyguards, but he didn't create his bodyguards. I once again said that this really does not translate at all to a god at the center of the void beyond creation, and the race of beings who he sends to create multiverses with his energy and then die and return to him.

3) Ignoring the context of the conversation, the claim was made that this person meant they wanted to impress the Source with how powerful she was, which I explained made absolutely no sense in the context of the conversation.

At this point in the conversation I was becoming increasingly frustrated with what I considered to be unreasonable bad faith arguing. By my assessment, these are not responses and claims that would come from someone trying to be reasonable and engage in good faith with the evidence and come to likely conclusions about it's meaning. Rather, it felt as though (and keep in mind that at this point several/all members of the group are dogpiling to this effect) they were deliberately exploiting any opportunity to call doubt upon even the most obvious of conclusions, and place undue burden on detractors to provide explanations and justifications for exceedingly obvious conclusions or basic concepts, only to object to the explanations themselves with the same far-fetched rejections and demands for justification.

So I decided I was going to stop entertaining some of these demands, such as the demand to explain why a human hiring bodyguards is not a meaningful counter-example to the statement that the god at the center of the overvoid probably created the race of multiverse-creating supercelestials who do his bidding and literally give their lives to create multiverses on its behalf, using power that is explicitly identified as coming from him.

In a vacuum, even these three examples may not be fully compelling to establish the pattern of behavior described, but what I want to underscore is that this is how every single piece of information is engaged with. Far-fetched bad-faith detraction, accusations of toxicity against anyone who expresses frustration at how silly the arguments are, and even went as far as to claim that users who abandon the debate due to this have "admitted they have no evidence."

Keep in mind that these situations often involve participation from every member of their group, many of whom we have established were recruited onto the site for the specific purpose of supporting them in CRTs. This situation evolved into the current one when, after many of these threads were closed, one of them took to the All-purpose request thread to claim they shouldn't have been closed because of how many agreements they had. When Ant highlighted the fact that they have been posting these CRTs one after the other and might be collaborating with each other, they harshly rebuked him for voicing this suspicion, and when I presented some of the evidence to call attention to the fact, they all came here and participated in an attempt to have me banned.

I recognize that this wasn't exactly concise, but it's difficult to capture vague concepts like "bad faith arguing" or "unreasonable stonewalling" with only a single example. But I fully agree with Ant's assessment, they play the victim whenever any of their problematic behavior is called attention to, aggressively rebuke the person suspecting it with claims of toxicity or false accusations, and all concurrently dogpile threads with low-effort detraction towards what should be very simple matter-of-fact conclusions from overt evidence.

I think this RvT situation is a compelling example, as well. Look at how they all responded to the evidence described by Mori as "absolutely staggering" and "the most cut-and-dry, textbook case of vote manipulation" and by Starter_Pack "some of the most damning evidence I have ever seen of collusion." Absolute denial of every single claim, rejection of every single piece of evidence, counter-accusations and hostility against anyone who stated the obvious conclusion. Starting with their initial attempt to have me banned for suggesting it. Imagine trying to engage in a CRT with 4 separate users who are arguing against scans in the same denialistic manner that this group argued against the "absolutely staggering" evidence against them, and having them create a new CRT for all of them to join in on to that same effect, immediately as soon as the last one was closed.

 

[Antvasima]

I wasn't talking about Transcending, Xearsay, and what not when I said "Permaban" but the guy who posted the borderline homophobic post. And has apparently done so twice in a row; first in 2021 then in 2022.

As for them (The small group of DC fans attacking Deagon), I'm not entirely certain but I think I only agreed with some short bans as well as some long term topic bans.

Can you clarify what they did earlier please? If it is a repeat-offender, that is obviously considerably worse.

 

[Pikaman]

That may very well be, but he did not say so outright, so we do not know for certain.

There is not a single context on this planet that would make the “this ******* shit” refer to literally anything other than the LGBTQIA+ Community

 

[Antvasima]

I will do my best to clarify, but I will say up front it is not as easy to establish this sort of thing with the kind of "smoking gun" evidence that was provided for their vote manipulation and subsequent lying about it. After all, how do you prove an argument is dishonest, and is there an objective measure of an argument being "unreasonable?"

To the point of misrepresenting evidence, I believe that much is more straightforward, but in the same manner as what occurred in this thread, every time the claim is made that they are deliberately misrepresenting evidence, they aggressively rebuke it and make counter-accusations of toxicity for implying dishonesty in the first place.

For unreasonability, I can speak to a few specific instances that I find compelling as examples of this behavior, and I emphasize the fact that the reason this has become an issue as Ant describes above is because these examples are a template for how this group responds to any and all information that is inconvenient to the conclusion they want to reach with their CRT, with Transcending and Xearsay making all of the CRTs that the four of them all focused on.

In a recent thread aimed at downgrading Lucifer Morningstar, a significant portion of the discussion revolved around the tier of a being called The Presence, who is also called the Source. For the purpose of this discussion, they are considered as equal to eachother. Some information was presented that, by my assessment, strongly support the Source scaling above a race of beings called "the Supercelestials" which would've rebutted that aspect of their argument. The information is as follows:

1) The Supercelestials do the bidding of the Source, and act based on it's judgment, to such an extent that at his command, they use energy from the Source to create multiverses in the "Overvoid", and then die, and let their energies return to the Source, who sits at the centre of the Overvoid.

2) We do not have direct knowledge of how the Supercelestials came into existence, but given the above, it is most likely that the Source created them.

3) One Supercelestial said -- as an explanation for why she is creating a multiverse -- that she "hopes to please the Source of her power" with Source in bold.

I felt strongly that the aggregate of this information paints an extremely clear picture that the Presence/Source scales above the Supercelestials, so I was surprised to receive the following counter-arguments to each claim:

1) The fact that they do his bidding doesn't mean he scales above them, because humans can have bosses they work for who aren't stronger than them. When I objected that the social context of human society and employee is not really applicable to a super-deity who commands beings to die for the sake of creating multiverses, it was demanded that I provide a thorough explanation for why.

2) It was argued that the most probable explanation for the Supercelestials existence was that they created themselves/came into existence from nothing and the fact that they do the bidding of the Presence/Source doesn't mean it created them. Specifically the example was given that Jason Momoa can hire bodyguards, but he didn't create his bodyguards. I once again said that this really does not translate at all to a god at the center of the void beyond creation, and the race of beings who he sends to create multiverses with his energy and then die and return to him.

3) Ignoring the context of the conversation, the claim was made that this person meant they wanted to impress the Source with how powerful she was, which I explained made absolutely no sense in the context of the conversation.

At this point in the conversation I was becoming increasingly frustrated with what I considered to be unreasonable bad faith arguing. By my assessment, these are not responses and claims that would come from someone trying to be reasonable and engage in good faith with the evidence and come to likely conclusions about it's meaning. Rather, it felt as though (and keep in mind that at this point several/all members of the group are dogpiling to this effect) they were deliberately exploiting any opportunity to call doubt upon even the most obvious of conclusions, and place undue burden on detractors to provide explanations and justifications for exceedingly obvious conclusions or basic concepts, only to object to the explanations themselves with the same far-fetched rejections and demands for justification.

So I decided I was going to stop entertaining some of these demands, such as the demand to explain why a human hiring bodyguards is not a meaningful counter-example to the statement that the god at the center of the overvoid probably created the race of multiverse-creating supercelestials who do his bidding and literally give their lives to create multiverses on its behalf, using power that is explicitly identified as coming from him.

In a vacuum, even these three examples may not be fully compelling to establish the pattern of behavior described, but what I want to underscore is that this is how every single piece of information is engaged with. Far-fetched bad-faith detraction, accusations of toxicity against anyone who expresses frustration at how silly the arguments are, and even went as far as to claim that users who abandon the debate due to this have "admitted they have no evidence."

Keep in mind that these situations often involve participation from every member of their group, many of whom we have established were recruited onto the site for the specific purpose of supporting them in CRTs. This situation evolved into the current one when, after many of these threads were closed, one of them took to the All-purpose request thread to claim they shouldn't have been closed because of how many agreements they had. When Ant highlighted the fact that they have been posting these CRTs one after the other and might be collaborating with each other, they harshly rebuked him for voicing this suspicion, and when I presented some of the evidence to call attention to the fact, they all came here and participated in an attempt to have me banned.

I recognize that this wasn't exactly concise, but it's difficult to capture vague concepts like "bad faith arguing" or "unreasonable stonewalling" with only a single example. But I fully agree with Ant's assessment, they play the victim whenever any of their problematic behavior is called attention to, aggressively rebuke the person suspecting it with claims of toxicity or false accusations, and all concurrently dogpile threads with low-effort detraction towards what should be very simple matter-of-fact conclusions from overt evidence.

I think this RvT situation is a compelling example, as well. Look at how they all responded to the evidence described by Mori as "absolutely staggering" and "the most cut-and-dry, textbook case of vote manipulation" and by Starter_Pack "some of the most damning evidence I have ever seen of collusion." Absolute denial of every single claim, rejection of every single piece of evidence, counter-accusations and hostility against anyone who stated the obvious conclusion. Starting with their initial attempt to have me banned for suggesting it. Imagine trying to engage in a CRT with 4 separate users who are arguing against scans in the same denialistic manner that this group argued against the "absolutely staggering" evidence against them, and having them create a new CRT for all of them to join in on to that same effect, immediately as soon as the last one was closed.

Yes, I have also gained this impression from their style of arguing in quite a lot of DC Comics-related content revision threads over a prolonged period of time.

 

[Antvasima]

There is not a single context on this planet that would make the “this ******* shit” refer to literally anything other than the LGBTQIA+ Community

You are likely correct, but all that was am saying is that the comment may have been directed towards the festivity itself rather than the people participating in it. That is all.

I am personally fine with if a considerably longer block than currently is applied.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Can you clarify what they did earlier please? If it is a repeat-offender, that is obviously considerably worse.

I was referencing this screenshot, there are 2 deleted posts though it only shows the more recent one. But the pattern combined with Asura's point of view does make it look like a repeated offense PairusDragonoid did. And I think the permaban might have already been taken care of, so I suppose I might have misunderstood or haven't followed the most recent part of that topic.

But the other topic regarding Transcending and his friends I basically agree with Deagon and Mortizva's take on the matter.

 

[Antvasima]

I think there may be a misunderstanding here. Here is a screencapture of the comment that you refer to:



@PairusDragonoid has currently only been banned for a month though, so that should probably be extended.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, do you remember more examples of arguing in bad faith from Xearsay, Transcending, and the other members of their group, Deagonx?

 

[Xearsay]

Anyway, do you remember more examples of arguing in bad faith from Xearsay, Transcending, and the other members of their group, Deagonx?

Once again why am I being brought up? The voter manipulation that happened wasn’t from me. All I did was make casual conversation with them on discord and agree with their threads. So why am I being threatened with a ban for the actions of other people? I’ve been asking this and no one has responded.

 

[Transcending]

Anyway, do you remember more examples of arguing in bad faith from Xearsay, Transcending, and the other members of their group, Deagonx?

How are our opinions even relevant to this? You are literally trying to punish us for having different opinions

 

[Deagonx]

Anyway, do you remember more examples of arguing in bad faith from Xearsay, Transcending, and the other members of their group, Deagonx?

With Xearsay, I'd say the main thing is lying about what scans say, and strawmanning/egregiously misrepresenting the arguments he's responding to. I think genuinely the vast majority of my discussions in CRTs with him involve pointing out that his description of a scan is inaccurate, or correcting a blatant strawman of something I said.

Example:

You cannot "misinterpret" something by rearranging the words. That's just lying. What the scan said, and what you said it said, were very different things. This is a repeated habit of yours.

It was my misinterpretation that caused me to wrongly paraphrase the statement. You have no proof I’m lying.

James Highwater would claim all that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.(Animal Man #19)

This is a very blatant misrepresentation of the evidence. He is quoting Edgar Allan Poe, not claiming this. He says "I don't know, does it matter? What did Poe say? 'All that we see, or seem, is but a dream within a dream.'"

The reason why this is problematic is because the way the threads are formatted, most people just accept the description he provided in the hyperlink without investigating what the scan actually says. I'm not the only person to notice this trend:

Now this is just BS and straight up being disingenous
Buddy sees himself in mirrors reflecting higher dimensions.............. then we have ".........the web of life stretching into infinity catches me, life captures life"

How does this say the higher dimensions he sees himself reflects in are infinite??

Not sure what you are reading but Nothing here in the scan you are arguing about states that

As to bad faith arguments, honestly, from both of them I think this very thread is a compelling example. For instance, having one's habit of bad faith stonewalling questioned and responding to it by saying:

You are literally trying to punish us for having different opinions

Or being punished for your explicit role in the groups scheme and describing it as:

One person violating rules doesn’t mean anyone and everyone who knows that person should be punished with them

But other than that I think the first post is a pretty compelling breakdown of the issue. Tbh though I think the vote manipulation and lying about it to get me banned by itself is sufficient justification for a topic ban.

 

[Transcending]

For instance, having one's habit of bad faith stonewalling and responding to it by saying:

What? You are literally trying to punish me for thinking Perpetua wasn't created by The Source, and you are trying to punish BT because he thinks Perpetua>Source. You are then trying to generalize this to the whole group and punish everyone. What's even worse is that BT was already banned, so you aren't even giving him a chance to defend himself against these new accusations.

 

[Deagonx]

Yes, we get it. All of you are completely and totally innocent™. Good grief. The reason you were unbanned was to provide a final summary of your position, which you said you would provide in "a few hours" like 12 hours ago. It was not so that you could repeat yourself in perpetuity every time someone references the consensus on the groups collective guilt.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

With Xearsay, I'd say the main thing is lying about what scans say, and strawmanning/egregiously misrepresenting the arguments he's responding to. I think genuinely the vast majority of my discussions in CRTs with him involve pointing out that his description of a scan is inaccurate, or correcting a blatant strawman of something I said.

Example:



The reason why this is problematic is because the way the threads are formatted, most people just accept the description he provided in the hyperlink without investigating what the scan actually says. I'm not the only person to notice this trend:




As to bad faith arguments, honestly, from both of them I think this very thread is a compelling example. For instance, having one's habit of bad faith stonewalling questioned and responding to it by saying:

Or being punished for your explicit role in the groups scheme and describing it as:

But other than that I think the first post is a pretty compelling breakdown of the issue. Tbh though I think the vote manipulation and lying about it to get me banned by itself is sufficient justification for a topic ban.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/dc-comics-animal-man-cosmology-determination.137779/post-4906940

For anyone wondering where the quotes are coming from.

This is where I find the quotes in question.


Anyway, I see no need to delays the punishments any further than necessary.
@Mr._Bambu was the one who did the bans on some of the members that was attempting to get a regular member being punished on false premise on the wiki website. I say we should do it on the forum as well.

I have blocked those two on the wiki proper then. How do the rest of you feel about Xearsay's case?

 

[Deagonx]

I say we should do it on the forum as well

They were banned on the forum but Transcending was unbanned so he could give a final summary of his defense of himself. The question of Xear's individual culpability was brought, to which myself, Ant, Mori, and DDM have affirmed his involvement. So I suppose the wait is for someone to decide to act upon it.

 

[Xearsay]

They were banned on the forum but Transcending was unbanned so he could give a final summary of his defense of himself. The question of Xear's individual culpability was brought, to which myself, Ant, Mori, and DDM have affirmed his involvement. So I suppose the wait is for someone to decide to act upon it.

You haven’t affirmed my involvement at all. We already know that I wasn’t a part of the server where these recruit messages even took place. The only reasons you gave to try and prove that I was involved was me agreeing with their threads and me having casual conversations with them on discord.

Me agreeing with their threads =/= I was recruiting people to the site to manipulate votes.

Me making casual conversation with them on discord =/= I was recruiting people to the site to manipulate votes.

You literally don’t have evidence I was recruiting people to the site to manipulate votes. You’re just trying to get punished along with them because you don’t like me.

 

[Deagonx]

You haven’t affirmed my involvement at all

What do you think the word affirm means?

 

[HammerStrikes219]

What do you think the word affirm means?

He just saying that he wasn’t the mastermind, but you can definitely make a sufficient argument that he was recruited into doing specific things in these threads being shown here such as agreement votes.

For another analogy, he isn’t the person(s) in charge who spearheaded the operation, but you make some sufficient evidence, he is a accomplice and/or associate in this specific case.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

The way I see it, the reason Xear was not directly implicated in the discord scans is because he was not a part of the server I was in, but based on his actions and references made to him by the others, I think it's clear he was in on it. I suspect that if I had access to the group chat he was in with the others, we would see the same manner of thing.

More importantly, he had every opportunity throughout this entire debacle to separate himself from the others, come clean about what had been going on, and be forthright about his role in it. Instead he participated in the dogpiling and denialism that the others engaged in on the All-purpose thread, and in this thread about trying to get me banned for bringing up that it had happened. For that reason, I personally do not believe he should be excluded. We know at the very least that he was part of the same kind of thing from these messages:

Notably, he commented extremely generic "FRA" comments immediately after similar concepts from users confirmed from the messages to have been invited to VSBW for the explicit purpose of giving FRAs on CRTs, so the timing IMO makes it very clear that he was involved in the same thing. Especially since it happens on the same day as the quote "I posted the link to the CRT in our GC with xearsay"

Transcending

vsbattles.fandom.com

Tetrahedron1234

vsbattles.fandom.com

Also in this case, I don’t think we rule it out just because it is technically guilty by association if anything.

 

[Xearsay]

He just saying that he wasn’t the mastermind, but you can definitely make a sufficient argument that he was recruited into doing specific things in these threads being shown here such as agreement votes and other forms which is stonewalling intentionally in this case.

For another analogy, he isn’t the person(s) in charge who spearheaded the operation, but you make some sufficient evidence, he is a accomplice and/or associate in this specific case.

You actually can’t make a sufficient argument for that either. Mainly because…

1) I’ve been pretty active on this site expressing similar views before I even met them and before they even came here.

2) I would have agreed with those threads regardless of who created them.

3) Within those threads they created I also barely participated compared to the rest. I voiced my certain views and that was it. So the idea that I was told to intentionally stonewall is not evident.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

You actually can’t make a sufficient argument for that either. Mainly because…

1) I’ve been pretty active on this site before they even came here.

2) I would have agreed with those threads regardless of who created them. As I’ve had my own views long before even coming to this site. And within those threads I also barely participated compared to the rest. So the idea that I was intentionally stonewalling doesn’t make any sense either.

Post in thread 'DC Comics - Animal Man Cosmology Determination'
https://vsbattles.com/threads/dc-comics-animal-man-cosmology-determination.137779/post-4906205
Post in thread 'DC Comics - Animal Man Cosmology Determination'
https://vsbattles.com/threads/dc-comics-animal-man-cosmology-determination.137779/post-4907725

Post in thread 'DC Comics - Animal Man Cosmology Determination'
https://vsbattles.com/threads/dc-comics-animal-man-cosmology-determination.137779/post-4908255

Post in thread 'DC Comics - Animal Man Cosmology Determination'
https://vsbattles.com/threads/dc-comics-animal-man-cosmology-determination.137779/post-4909254
Post in thread 'DC Comics - Animal Man Cosmology Determination'
https://vsbattles.com/threads/dc-comics-animal-man-cosmology-determination.137779/post-4911035

I gonna stop you right there.


You have made a sufficient involvement in that thread I linked here. I wouldn’t even say it was “barely” too.

 

[Deagonx]

So the idea that I was told to intentionally stonewall is not evident.

Nobody, not a single time, suggested you were told to intentionally stonewall.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Nobody, not a single time, suggested you were told to intentionally stonewall.

Tbf, I did word it that way.

In any case, that is dragging on longer than necessary in the case of Transcending and other ppl involved in wanting to get you accused on false premise.

 

[Xearsay]

You have made a sufficient involvement in that thread I linked here. I wouldn’t even say it was “barely” too.

You do realize this isn’t one of their threads right? This is a thread I created. I don’t even know what you think you’re proving by posting this. How does me being active in my own thread = that I was recruited by Transcending to agree and stonewall his threads?

 

[HammerStrikes219]

You do realize this isn’t one of their threads right? This is a thread I created. I don’t even know what you think you’re proving by posting this. Honestly, how does me being active in my own thread = that I was recruited to agree and stonewall Transcendings threads?

Hmmm, while a fair point on the thread being created by you, you still did defend the points you made in the said threads so I suppose it will been more of the opposite as I did word it poorly.

It is more of the case of you being defended by Transcending and specific ppl in that thread if anything.
However, I will remove the statements about the stonewall part.

 

[Xearsay]

Tbf, I did word it that way.

In any case, that is dragging on longer than necessary in the case of Xearsay and other ppl involved in wanting to get you accused on false premise.

Also I took no part in the creation of the report against Deagonx transcending made. So you can’t include me as trying to get him accused on a false premise.

 

[Xearsay]

Hmmm, while a fair point on the thread being created by you, you still did defend the points you made in the said threads so I suppose it will been more of the opposite as I did word it poorly.

It is more of the case of you being defended by Transcending and specific ppl in that thread if anything.
However, I will remove the statements about the stonewall part.

Ok, and? It’s not like I told Transcending to defend me in those threads. I’ve never told or bribed anyone to defend me in threads.

Also you do realize Transcending was like one of 8+ regular users and multiple staff defending my arguments in that thread right? And he wasn’t even the most active one doing it. Malmotek, Uldrmaster, Armorchompy, Conflcutor, and Jibz were all way more active defending me in that thread. Are you gonna say that I told them to defend me as well?

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Also I took no part in the creation of the report against Deagonx transcending made. So you can’t include me as trying to get him accused on a false premise.

Decided to reword it as Transcending was the one who did initially report him

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Ok. And? It’s not like I told Transcending to defend me in those threads. I’ve never told or bribed anyone to defend me in threads.

Also you do realize Transcending was like one of 8+ regular users and multiple staff defending my arguments in that thread right? And he wasn’t even the most active one doing it. Malmotek, Uldrmaster, Armorchompy, Conflcutor, and Jibz were all way more active defending me in that thread. Are you gonna say that I told them to defend me as well?

That I saw already, but honestly it is getting late and this topic, to being blunt, has dragged on longer than necessary simply because of the back and forth on this thread solely on the false accusations and vote manipulation.

I will let the staff sort this out as stated earlier since this shouldn’t have last 2 and a half pages just for this debate alone too.

 

[Xearsay]

That I saw already, but honestly it is getting late and this topic, to being blunt, has dragged on longer than necessary simply because of the back and forth on this thread solely on the false accusations and vote manipulation alone as well.

I will let the staff sort this out since this shouldn’t have last 2 and a half pages just for this debate alone too.

I agree the debate between Transcending and Deagonx dragged on for to long, but I however didn’t really get a chance to defend myself until now. And surely you can understand why I’d be defending myself when you guys are literally falsely accusing me of vote manipulation.

 

[Deagonx]

Maybe because Deagonx takes out of context screenshots as evidence and then accuses us of false things

I would like to report @Deagonx for falsely accusing myself, @Xearsay, and @Beyond_transcending in this thread

We reported because you were and still are making false accusations about us by using out of context and misinterpreted screenshots

And surely you can understand why I’d be defending myself when you guys are literally falsely accusing me of vote manipulation.

 

[Xearsay]

What is even the point in what you just posted?

 

[KingTempest]

Xearsay doesn't seem innocent but just keep watch on his threads when the others are unbanned

Ban the others and keep an eye out for socks

 

[Xearsay]

Xearsay doesn't seem innocent but just keep watch on his threads when the others are unbanned

Ban the others and keep an eye out for socks

I have no problem with you guys keeping watch on my threads. I don’t know what you’d get out of it as I haven’t done any voter manipulation. However can you at least give a reason for why you think “ I don’t seem innocent”?

 

[Robo432343]

I have no problem with you guys keeping watch on my threads. However can you at least give a reason for why you think “ I don’t seem innocent”?

the evidence deagon posted

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

@TheGreatMaster12 is asking if he may be unbanned. He was initially banned for some light harassment towards Firestorm and it was to last three months. Been a while and probably going to expire soon, but I don't mind lifting his ban early if others most notable Firestorm are okay with it. He has apologized for the things that got him banned and seems like he's going to be making an honest effort to shape up IMO.

 

[KingTempest]

I have no problem with you guys keeping watch on my threads. I don’t know what you’d get out of it as I haven’t done any voter manipulation. However can you at least give a reason for why you think “ I don’t seem innocent”?

You're affiliated with a group full of people who are breaking rules and you're slightly involved

You're a person of interest*, that's better than "not innocent"

 

[Xearsay]

You're affiliated with a group full of people who are breaking rules and you're slightly involved

You're a person of interest*, that's better than "not innocent"

“Affiliated”? “Slightly involved”?? All I’ve done was make casual conversation with them, and the very server where the rule breaking was taking place I wasn’t even a part of.

You wouldn’t say because one makes casual talk with a street gang member from time to time that they’re affiliated and involved with the bloods and their criminal activity.

I’m not trying to start another argument or whatever but I really don’t think there’s grounds for me to even be dragged into this.