- 4,162
- 1,395
Just as a friendly reminder, the initial accusations was made by @Deagonx towards the group and I myself am still suspicious, but at the same time, I will give you the benefit of the doubt although not completely anyway.
-
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
- 21,235
- 30,267
Big difference, but I see your point
Fair then
Rereading Xearsay's statements in the past few pages, he seems innocent
- 7,577
- 14,104
Respectfully, I disagree, based on my comments here.
Vondoom
Username Only- 395
- 131
Post in thread 'Rule Violation Reports (New forum)' https://vsbattles.com/threads/rule-violation-reports-new-forum.107529/post-5186052
Transcending posted this also above which makes me think Xearsay is clean unlike the rest.
- 21,235
- 30,267
Preciate the nonhostility, but I disagree
Me personally in my experience of owning and being a member/contributor/leading member of many VSBW servers, if I see a thread, regardless of if I was asked or not to give input, usually I'd give input
Him inputting in threads and his name being mentioned don't really hold say. It looks like the worst implication is that he's involved but he's not at fault.
Shit, I have people who agree with threads I make unprovoked even when I tell em not to. Like I can say shit like this
And they'll still agree cause my name is there. Doesn't mean I should get banned cause I have a band of followers.
He's innocent until guilty, and having a group of people who agree with what he says isn't something to blame him for
Last edited:
- 7,577
- 14,104
I think the key factors here for me are that they were sending their CRTs to each other and his generic "FRA" comments show up immediately after the known socks.
On top of the fact that in the all-purpose thread and this thread he continued to argue in support of them and even called me a liar as well for calling out what was happening.
He had ample opportunity to separate himself and come clean about what was happening instead of antagonizing and continuing to argue with them, and only announced his separation once it became clear that things weren't going to go in the groups favor.
More to the subject of what Ant and I were discussing, his problematic behavior on the forums in arguing with bad faith stonewalling along with the other members of the group also bears consideration.
I think he basically just got lucky that he wasn't in the Discord for his role in the event to be directly exposed, only indirectly, allowing him to take advantage of plausible deniability.
- 21,235
- 30,267
Should get a warning or a message about the deliberate/unintentional lying then
Link me where he argued in support of them, I didn't read the APT but in here he didn't
Stonewalling is its own offense.
If it's true that he's involved, then like you said, he's lucky
Link me where he argued in support of them, I didn't read the APT but in here he didn't
Stonewalling is its own offense.
If it's true that he's involved, then like you said, he's lucky
- 1,277
- 1,023
I made only one comment that was barely defending them in the all purpose thread and it was before all of the rule breaking stuff that I was unaware of had been brought to my attention.
Also, I already said that I was dealing with family issues and couldn’t fully commit myself to what was going on here until now. So saying I’ve had “ample opportunity” to separate myself is not true.
The stonewalling accusations are a separate thing tbh. And I’d personally like to focus on one thing at a time.
Also, I already said that I was dealing with family issues and couldn’t fully commit myself to what was going on here until now. So saying I’ve had “ample opportunity” to separate myself is not true.
The stonewalling accusations are a separate thing tbh. And I’d personally like to focus on one thing at a time.
Last edited:
- 7,577
- 14,104
Yeah, this is what it comes down to more or less. Most of the admins so far seem to think the evidence provided is sufficient to hold him responsible and I agree, but we will see what Bambu and the others say once they have time to look it over.
- 7,047
- 6,902
How long has it been so far?
- 165,679
- 73,408
- Thread starter
- #15,332
@PairusDragonoid sent me the following message:
https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Message_Wall:Antvasima?threadId=4400000000003460972
He is currently only banned for a month, so we need to decide the final verdict. A permanent ban seems too harsh for something that he deleted in my view.
We also need to finish our other two current ongoing discussions:
Xearsay, Transcending and their associates seemingly repeatedly arguing in bad faith to push through DC Comics revisions, combined with systematically stonewalling logical rebuttals to their arguments. I personally think that a permanent topic ban would likely be the best way to deal with them.
TheGreatMaster12 possibly having his ban lifted, but it largely depends on what Firestorm808 thinks.
https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Message_Wall:Antvasima?threadId=4400000000003460972
He is currently only banned for a month, so we need to decide the final verdict. A permanent ban seems too harsh for something that he deleted in my view.
We also need to finish our other two current ongoing discussions:
Xearsay, Transcending and their associates seemingly repeatedly arguing in bad faith to push through DC Comics revisions, combined with systematically stonewalling logical rebuttals to their arguments. I personally think that a permanent topic ban would likely be the best way to deal with them.
TheGreatMaster12 possibly having his ban lifted, but it largely depends on what Firestorm808 thinks.
Transcending
He/Him- 1,998
- 1,525
Look I have been a bit busy with exams and stuff, but I am making it
Transcending
He/Him- 1,998
- 1,525
I highly disagree, you are trying to topic ban us for having different opinions than you guys. Plus I have more accepted DC stuff than rejected ones.
- 30,319
- 25,758
I'm not in favor of a permanent ban. I think the 1 month ban should be fine to uphold and it should be passed on to him that it is not acceptable to post such things.
- 165,679
- 73,408
- Thread starter
- #15,336
Well, 1 month seems a bit too lenient, given that I think that DarthSpiderr was banned for a year for saying something less severe as I understood it, despite that he has helped out a lot more in this community than PairusDragonoid has as far as I am aware.
I technically only wanted a 3 months ban for DarthSpiderr though, and again, PairusDragonoid deleted his comment.
I technically only wanted a 3 months ban for DarthSpiderr though, and again, PairusDragonoid deleted his comment.
- 7,047
- 6,902
From the looks of it, it's already been a month and a half. So long as he assures us that there won't be further issues, I'm fine with an early unbanning.
- 165,679
- 73,408
- Thread starter
- #15,338
- 165,679
- 73,408
- Thread starter
- #15,339
No, for relentlessly stonewalling multiple threads after Deagonx and others had proven your arguments to be misrepresentations of what the linked scans and stories that they were a part of actually said.
I mainly recall that as having been a problem with Xearsay though.
- 1,277
- 1,023
I want to go over this because I’m tired of you saying this about me. The evidence Deagonx presented in attempt to prove I argue in bad faith and systemically stonewall threads were from two different Animal Man threads.
For this first quote he brought up that is from the first Animal Man thread, the argument was because I used the word “transcend” instead of “outside” when paraphrasing a scan. After I admitted to my mistake and expressed that it was an accident, Deagonx kept trying to push the situation beyond what it was, accusing me of intentionally lying and trying to push an agenda. Something that doesn’t any make sense because if I was arguing in bad faith I wouldn’t be admitting that I was wrong.
The second quote he brought up is from
the second Animal Man thread and it isn’t misrepresenting the evidence, as the scan I linked does openly state “All that we see, or seem, is but a dream within a dream.”
The third quote he brought up which is a response from Pain, comes from the second Animal Man thread as well. However, what Deagonx seemed to have left out is the fact that Pains response was something I basically agreed with. Which is me once again, admitting that I had made a mistake.
Me - “I already went over this earlier in the thread but this was essentially something I didn’t change and was mainly an argument created by someone else. So yeah you can ignore it. However the scan itself is still usable for scaling the higher realms.”
Deagonx also quoted Pain saying this…
Pain - “Not sure what you are reading but Nothing here in the scan you are arguing about states that.”
However I don’t know why he quoted this because this was not in response to me and was actually in response to Udlmaster. I digress, the situations that were given as evidence to try and prove that I argue in bad faith don’t actually support the idea that I argue in bad faith because I literally admitted in those very threads that I was wrong in those situations. Let alone systematically stonewall threads. As Transcending was never active in the first Animal Man thread and was barely active in the second one.
Last edited:
- 1,277
- 1,023
Also this is not the first time Ant and Deagonx tried to get me topic banned over the Animal Man stuff. The last time they tried to get me topic banned it was met with an extremely high amount of disagreement, until a very high amount of regular users and multiple staff had to basically defend me and tell Ant that what he was doing was inappropriate. I’m not gonna quote every single response defending me, however I will quote the main ones that I think received the most agreements.
Armorchompy - “These are very heavy accusations of dishonesty aimed at someone who, from what I can see, seems to be acting in a perfectly polite, legitimate manner, especially when the debate is not even over. Please wait for a much more uniform consensus before closing the thread, let alone issuing a topic ban, that is a very serious thing to do.”
Confluctor - “Nobody is getting topic banned, hell no. OP hasn't made this stuff repeatedly, and most of his stuff got shot down because of cosmology split promise. In addition to, last time his Animal Man thread got closed before he could even reply, and this time, he is making better arguments than before and brought more/different scans from what I can remember. OP has generally made good threads and has acted in a good manner - at least from what I can remember from being present in a number of their threads. Seems like the argument to topic ban him and to shoot down his CRT comes from a very bad faith - and some might even call it "bias".
Anyway, deal with the evidence brought and that's it. No one should be getting threatened with a topic ban or have their threads closed because arguments were """debunked""" - which they weren't in its entirety.
From this point onwards, I would rather not see either side trying to derail the thread with nonsense like this. Look at the evidence, evaluate it, and that's it.”
Jibz - “Keep in mind this is a thread that had new information with an ongoing discourse before. Ant is clearly trying to use his powers to shut down this discourse. Ive already seen him act this way before (2-A Superman removal).
I could go on and on about Ant's behaviour in this thread, but i won't. Its nothing short of embarrasing. More power to Xearsay cuz i swear to god if i put time and effort into making a thread and replying to comments disagreeing just to have a person trying to use their power to end the thread in its infancy, make snide and rude comments towards their intentions and their character i would not have been 1% as calm as he was.
I'm not going to waste anymore time derailing. Goku solos. Godspeed yall.”
Armorchompy - “These are very heavy accusations of dishonesty aimed at someone who, from what I can see, seems to be acting in a perfectly polite, legitimate manner, especially when the debate is not even over. Please wait for a much more uniform consensus before closing the thread, let alone issuing a topic ban, that is a very serious thing to do.”
Confluctor - “Nobody is getting topic banned, hell no. OP hasn't made this stuff repeatedly, and most of his stuff got shot down because of cosmology split promise. In addition to, last time his Animal Man thread got closed before he could even reply, and this time, he is making better arguments than before and brought more/different scans from what I can remember. OP has generally made good threads and has acted in a good manner - at least from what I can remember from being present in a number of their threads. Seems like the argument to topic ban him and to shoot down his CRT comes from a very bad faith - and some might even call it "bias".
Anyway, deal with the evidence brought and that's it. No one should be getting threatened with a topic ban or have their threads closed because arguments were """debunked""" - which they weren't in its entirety.
From this point onwards, I would rather not see either side trying to derail the thread with nonsense like this. Look at the evidence, evaluate it, and that's it.”
Jibz - “Keep in mind this is a thread that had new information with an ongoing discourse before. Ant is clearly trying to use his powers to shut down this discourse. Ive already seen him act this way before (2-A Superman removal).
I could go on and on about Ant's behaviour in this thread, but i won't. Its nothing short of embarrasing. More power to Xearsay cuz i swear to god if i put time and effort into making a thread and replying to comments disagreeing just to have a person trying to use their power to end the thread in its infancy, make snide and rude comments towards their intentions and their character i would not have been 1% as calm as he was.
I'm not going to waste anymore time derailing. Goku solos. Godspeed yall.”
Last edited:
- 7,577
- 14,104
Fully agree. Their behavior has been consistently problematic.
This has gone on far too long. A decision needs to be made so we can all move on one way or another.
Transcending
He/Him- 1,998
- 1,525
Alright so since I probably won't get another chance, I will try to make the best of this offer. This time, I will go more in-depth than any of my posts. Firstly though, I will mention that my original report also accused him of falsely accusing Xearsay, and from above, it seems that turned out to be right. So my report shouldn't be completely not considered.
Now, I will try to address all the screenshots Deagon has posted, let me know if I missed any.
1:
This screenshot, actually goes against Deagon. BT jokingly said that if I gave him a Pokemon, he would always agree with my CRT, but I didn't actually give him a Pokemon. The fact I didn't accept his deal(which was a joke anyway), proves I am against forcing people to agree. If what Deagon said was true, and I was trying to solicit agreements, I would have given him some Pokemon. This screenshot debunks Deagon's entire argument.
2:
What's important is against who BT said this. As stated before, he said this to a person who has never used his VSBW to post anything and forgot his password. This person is @Joshn05
He was thinking about coming to VSBW for real, but eventually thought against it. BT didn't discourage anyone from disagreeing, he requested a person, who isn't even properly on VSBW, to not argue against a CRT. And this is a single screenshot of him asking something from a single person, it's not a discouragement to the whole server, especially when people like @Tarang123 have actually disagreed with my CRT and is also on the server. Lastly, even if this screenshot acted as a discouragement, this is not relevant to Deagon's claim that we asked and bargained for agreements, as in this screenshot no one even asks for input, let alone an agreement.
3:
This screenshot was in relation to Ant closing this thread- https://vsbattles.com/threads/barbatos-and-unexpected-mandrakk-upgrade.142835/
I didn't ask anyone to agree with me here, I just asked for evaluation
So they had free will when they agreed with me. After they did however, I felt like @Antvasima and @Deagonx were teaming up on me. And since they naturally agreed with me, I thought it would be fairer if we do 2v2 instead of me trying to combat both of them alone. If they hadn't agreed with me, I wouldn't have asked.
4:
The fact that he even showed this proves dishonesty. Everything we did here was trolling
You need to know how our server works to truly understand the context. Right now, the server is more structured but back then, we had places called "Muken" and "Clownland" and we would send people to those places for however small rule breaks they did. After that, the owner would ask the rule-breaker to give him some Dank Memer money. If you give half your entire money, the amount of time you spend in the places would be halved while if you give your full money, you can immediately get out
So I just trolled him and said he wouldn't be sent to Muken if he agrees with my CRT(he was in Clownland at the time). However, I wasn't actually serious about any of this. As mentioned and proved before, I was trolling him the entire time because his reactions are godly. I only ask people to post their agreements if they already agree with it
I don't bargain for them or anything, I just ask.
5:
I don't have much for this other than the fact Owner-Sama had already agreed with the CRT. I only ask people to agree with my CRT when I know they actually agree, which is equal to asking for their opinion. But this is what Deagon said on the matter-
6:
I don't know why this was even posted, nowhere in it does BT ask for agreements. BT only asks them to do something. Samael, and Cat/Erm had both given their agreements in the thread(with free will). However, @Antvasima and @Deagonx were teaming up on me, so BT was asking them to support me and make it a 2v2 rather than a 2v1. At the time, both of us were feeling very intense due to replies from one of them coming literally immediately after I finish addressing the other person.
Now, last screenshot, let's go!
7:
Michael in the context is referring to @MichaelJZero. The context is that he and me were going to debate, which he stated would have been his final debate. However, he doesn't really debate outside Quora, so we decided to do it there. "Formal" Quora debates(not the random ones you do in comments of posts and answers), have a set of rules to them. One of them is that the debate has to be absolutely 1v1, meaning no helping of any kind is allowed. If someone helps a debater, that person would be punished and the debater could be disqualified depending on if the debater asked for that help.
Now these debates are started with an announcement post announcing the debate, and till the announcement is made, the debate wouldn't have started and in this time, you can still take help. BT wanted to help MJ against me, but he could be punished if he helps after the announcement was made, so we made a deal that I would delay the announcement, and in turn he would give input in my CRT. It should be noted that he did genuinely agree with the CRT, the difference was that he would have only actually given his input that he agreed if I delay the announcement. So we made the deal. I wouldn't have made it if he hadn't actually agreed with the CRT. So he would give his genuine input that he agreed and in turn I would delay the announcement, giving him a chance to help MJ.
So the only crime I have committed is asking some offsite people to give input on my CRTs. This isn't rule-breaking as far as I know, and some members and staff have confirmed it isn't here.
Now, if all this wasn't enough to change your mind, I would like to remind two things-
1: Deagon's screenshots where I asked for agreements(ignoring the fact they did genuinely agree), were only in reference to these two CRTs-
In all other CRTs, I myself have showed screenshots of me asking for input and I specifically did say input. The problem here lies with the fact that not only are they old compared to mine, but his accusations were directed at me for the Lucifer downgrade thread, the Barbatos upgrade thread, and the Source downgrade thread. He has shown no proof I asked for agreements for those three threads, and I have shown proof for the contrary. So his accusations are still false and invalid
Anyway, I will compile some posts of me asking for input specifically in another post I will release quick.
2: None of the screenshots shows me asking agreements from Tetrahedon. They only show conversations between me and BT. So I request that Tetra should be left alone at the very least.
Now, I will try to address all the screenshots Deagon has posted, let me know if I missed any.
1:
This screenshot, actually goes against Deagon. BT jokingly said that if I gave him a Pokemon, he would always agree with my CRT, but I didn't actually give him a Pokemon. The fact I didn't accept his deal(which was a joke anyway), proves I am against forcing people to agree. If what Deagon said was true, and I was trying to solicit agreements, I would have given him some Pokemon. This screenshot debunks Deagon's entire argument.
2:
What's important is against who BT said this. As stated before, he said this to a person who has never used his VSBW to post anything and forgot his password. This person is @Joshn05
He was thinking about coming to VSBW for real, but eventually thought against it. BT didn't discourage anyone from disagreeing, he requested a person, who isn't even properly on VSBW, to not argue against a CRT. And this is a single screenshot of him asking something from a single person, it's not a discouragement to the whole server, especially when people like @Tarang123 have actually disagreed with my CRT and is also on the server. Lastly, even if this screenshot acted as a discouragement, this is not relevant to Deagon's claim that we asked and bargained for agreements, as in this screenshot no one even asks for input, let alone an agreement.
3:
This screenshot was in relation to Ant closing this thread- https://vsbattles.com/threads/barbatos-and-unexpected-mandrakk-upgrade.142835/
I didn't ask anyone to agree with me here, I just asked for evaluation
So they had free will when they agreed with me. After they did however, I felt like @Antvasima and @Deagonx were teaming up on me. And since they naturally agreed with me, I thought it would be fairer if we do 2v2 instead of me trying to combat both of them alone. If they hadn't agreed with me, I wouldn't have asked.
4:
The fact that he even showed this proves dishonesty. Everything we did here was trolling
You need to know how our server works to truly understand the context. Right now, the server is more structured but back then, we had places called "Muken" and "Clownland" and we would send people to those places for however small rule breaks they did. After that, the owner would ask the rule-breaker to give him some Dank Memer money. If you give half your entire money, the amount of time you spend in the places would be halved while if you give your full money, you can immediately get out
So I just trolled him and said he wouldn't be sent to Muken if he agrees with my CRT(he was in Clownland at the time). However, I wasn't actually serious about any of this. As mentioned and proved before, I was trolling him the entire time because his reactions are godly. I only ask people to post their agreements if they already agree with it
I don't bargain for them or anything, I just ask.
5:
I don't have much for this other than the fact Owner-Sama had already agreed with the CRT. I only ask people to agree with my CRT when I know they actually agree, which is equal to asking for their opinion. But this is what Deagon said on the matter-
What I did was ask people, to agree with the CRT, if that is their genuine opinion. It's equal to asking them for input when you don't know their opinion. Many people in the wiki ask other members to give input in their CRTs, which is what I basically did except I knew the opinion of the person(that he agreed), so I asked him to agree. I don't see the issue. If someone requests input in a CRT, would you punish him?
6:
I don't know why this was even posted, nowhere in it does BT ask for agreements. BT only asks them to do something. Samael, and Cat/Erm had both given their agreements in the thread(with free will). However, @Antvasima and @Deagonx were teaming up on me, so BT was asking them to support me and make it a 2v2 rather than a 2v1. At the time, both of us were feeling very intense due to replies from one of them coming literally immediately after I finish addressing the other person.
Now, last screenshot, let's go!
7:
Michael in the context is referring to @MichaelJZero. The context is that he and me were going to debate, which he stated would have been his final debate. However, he doesn't really debate outside Quora, so we decided to do it there. "Formal" Quora debates(not the random ones you do in comments of posts and answers), have a set of rules to them. One of them is that the debate has to be absolutely 1v1, meaning no helping of any kind is allowed. If someone helps a debater, that person would be punished and the debater could be disqualified depending on if the debater asked for that help.
Now these debates are started with an announcement post announcing the debate, and till the announcement is made, the debate wouldn't have started and in this time, you can still take help. BT wanted to help MJ against me, but he could be punished if he helps after the announcement was made, so we made a deal that I would delay the announcement, and in turn he would give input in my CRT. It should be noted that he did genuinely agree with the CRT, the difference was that he would have only actually given his input that he agreed if I delay the announcement. So we made the deal. I wouldn't have made it if he hadn't actually agreed with the CRT. So he would give his genuine input that he agreed and in turn I would delay the announcement, giving him a chance to help MJ.
So the only crime I have committed is asking some offsite people to give input on my CRTs. This isn't rule-breaking as far as I know, and some members and staff have confirmed it isn't here.
Now, if all this wasn't enough to change your mind, I would like to remind two things-
1: Deagon's screenshots where I asked for agreements(ignoring the fact they did genuinely agree), were only in reference to these two CRTs-
In all other CRTs, I myself have showed screenshots of me asking for input and I specifically did say input. The problem here lies with the fact that not only are they old compared to mine, but his accusations were directed at me for the Lucifer downgrade thread, the Barbatos upgrade thread, and the Source downgrade thread. He has shown no proof I asked for agreements for those three threads, and I have shown proof for the contrary. So his accusations are still false and invalid
Anyway, I will compile some posts of me asking for input specifically in another post I will release quick.
2: None of the screenshots shows me asking agreements from Tetrahedon. They only show conversations between me and BT. So I request that Tetra should be left alone at the very least.
Last edited:
- 7,577
- 14,104
This is completely wrong. The original report you made was based on these comments from the all-purpose thread:
Which both you and Xear attempted to deny:
My "accusation" was already proven true, you did ask him to participate in your CRTs, you were planning your CRTs together, and you both called me a liar for pointing that out and came here to get me banned for it. The vote manipulation statement was simply this:
Also completely true.
- 4,162
- 1,395
Hmmm, after looking at the evidence at re examination, I will have to admit the accusations for vote manipulation doesn’t seem completely valid at first as well.
Last edited:
Transcending
He/Him- 1,998
- 1,525
Thank you
- 7,577
- 14,104
Completely disagree. The most egregious instances of it were just handwaved by saying "well he already agreed" and the overt instance in which disagreement was directly discouraged was handwaved by saying that this person wasn't a regular VSBW user. Neither of those statements meaningfully counter what the facts of the matter are. I mean, really:
"BT never discouraged anyone, he just told someone not to argue against a CRT, and that person forgot his VSBW password so it doesn't count."
If nothing else, I think the above is an example of how ardent passionate denial of accusations can be persuasive to people even when the evidence is completely damning.
Transcending
He/Him- 1,998
- 1,525
No. Refer to these lines-
No one asked Xearsay to agree with anything and he didn't ask anyone to agree with anything.
I did ask him to participate in my CRTs, but I never asked him to agree with my CRTs. As for our planning, I did tell him what my arguments for the Barbatos and Mandrakk thread would be but that's all I did, he didn't tell me anything new. All the arguments were mine, I just asked him to verify them.
We didn't plan Lucifer CRT or do anything related to it
- 7,577
- 14,104
That statement doesn't even mention Xearsay.
So you did ask him to participate in your CRTs. Yet, when this so called "false accusation" was first made, you tried to deny it:
You are only admitting it now because you can't deny it any longer.
Transcending
He/Him- 1,998
- 1,525
BT asked one person to not agree, but that person hasn't contributed before and probably won't contribute again. So the one person the message could have discouraged isn't gonna do anything. Plus I addressed why even if he did discourage, it would be irrelevant and why would others like Tetra be banned for something BT did? I would also note that this comment from BT, would only warrant a warning AT BEST even if it was true.
I assumed you referred to him as well, since you consider all of us together to be a group. Anyway, this point is irrelevant. Even if my original report was wrong, fact remains you falsely accused Xearsay. Regardless of the report, you still did a bad thing.
I asked for proof, I didn't deny, big difference.
At this point it's not gonna be any use responding to you, you are just going to prolong the argument despite my post existing to not prolong it.
Transcending
He/Him- 1,998
- 1,525
Not really, I found the arguments and sometimes asked them to verify it, like with Xearsay. That's all.
- 7,577
- 14,104
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You realize none of those details change anything?
So case in point, you assumed I meant somebody I never named. I have not made a single false accusation. You have all been saying that for several days, but it's clearly untrue.
There is literally no difference. Asking someone for proof of an accusation instead of admitting it, when you know it's true, is the same as denying it.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Silver Supporter
- 21,760
- 19,683
I had a long lasting internet outage yesterday so my apologies on my lack of correspondence on the ongoing Deagonx case.
I agree with KingTempest that while Xearsay was involved in some sus shit, it isn't enough to dole out a punishment. I think Xearsay is genuine in, at least, saying he probably would have agreed with the threads. I am still of the opinion that Transcending and friends are guilty of manipulating threads, I suspect Xearsay is just one piece of that. There doesn't seem to be a definitive case for Xearsay being involved with said manipulation outside of being a pawn in it.
Regarding Transcendence's arguments, whether or not it was joked about before isn't evidence that it would not happen. The implications exist that you were goading people towards one particular outcome of a CRT, which as a joke is of course harmless- but when situations arise where plenty of folks show up and just mindlessly FRA, it becomes a bit more suspicious.
To save the RVT a little space, I'm going to act on my judgement. If some staff member wishes to re-open the case, I'd like for them to message me privately (or use other channels besides this RVT- it has taken up far more room than it has any right to anyhow).
For future record: asking someone to check your CRT is fine. But there is a fine line between that and gathering people to just mindlessly vote yes for you or for the verse in question. The democratic system of the site only works so long as there is a social contract that actions like these aren't taken. Staff votes ultimately decide the outcome, but they are often based on normal user's votes. So debate in good faith, this is all I ask.
I agree with KingTempest that while Xearsay was involved in some sus shit, it isn't enough to dole out a punishment. I think Xearsay is genuine in, at least, saying he probably would have agreed with the threads. I am still of the opinion that Transcending and friends are guilty of manipulating threads, I suspect Xearsay is just one piece of that. There doesn't seem to be a definitive case for Xearsay being involved with said manipulation outside of being a pawn in it.
Regarding Transcendence's arguments, whether or not it was joked about before isn't evidence that it would not happen. The implications exist that you were goading people towards one particular outcome of a CRT, which as a joke is of course harmless- but when situations arise where plenty of folks show up and just mindlessly FRA, it becomes a bit more suspicious.
To save the RVT a little space, I'm going to act on my judgement. If some staff member wishes to re-open the case, I'd like for them to message me privately (or use other channels besides this RVT- it has taken up far more room than it has any right to anyhow).
For future record: asking someone to check your CRT is fine. But there is a fine line between that and gathering people to just mindlessly vote yes for you or for the verse in question. The democratic system of the site only works so long as there is a social contract that actions like these aren't taken. Staff votes ultimately decide the outcome, but they are often based on normal user's votes. So debate in good faith, this is all I ask.
Last edited:
- 165,679
- 73,408
- Thread starter
- #15,355
Well, I think that trying to get Deagonx banned on very false premises warrants a considerably longer ban than just 1 month for those involved.
I would also appreciate if Deagonx finds the time to gather evidence for dishonest arguments made by Xearsay and the others over the past several months, as I have had far too many tasks to deal with to properly remember most of the details.
I would also appreciate if Deagonx finds the time to gather evidence for dishonest arguments made by Xearsay and the others over the past several months, as I have had far too many tasks to deal with to properly remember most of the details.
Hasty12345
Username Only- 4,615
- 3,497
How do you even define “dishonest arguments” when most of it comes down to interpretation of vague text? This seems like a witch hunt at this point.
- 165,679
- 73,408
- Thread starter
- #15,357
I remember reading through several of their threads and noticing a pattern of arguments being revealed as based on very misleading premises, not just in terms of that the images being linked to were placed out of context, but that they were actually claimed to state something very different than they really did. And after this was pointed out by the opposition, they still continued to extensively stonewall any progress in the conversations.
However, Deagonx and certain other members were far more actively involved than I was, and I have a vague memory to start with, and very limited free time available, so it is up to them if they have the time to properly organise and present evidence for this issue, if I haven't misunderstood the situation.
However, Deagonx and certain other members were far more actively involved than I was, and I have a vague memory to start with, and very limited free time available, so it is up to them if they have the time to properly organise and present evidence for this issue, if I haven't misunderstood the situation.
Last edited:
Hasty12345
Username Only- 4,615
- 3,497
Again, this just comes down to interpretation, and if we’re gonna start banning people for not following mainstream interpretation, then I’ve got a lot of reports I want to make…
also something to think about, this comes very close to banning people for lack of reading comprehension which can be interpreted as banning people for being stupid. I’d ask you to think carefully as to how poorly a precedent like this can be abused.
- 165,679
- 73,408
- Thread starter
- #15,359
I suppose that is a good point, yes.
However, Deagonx remembers the context of these situations considerably better than I do, so it is up to him if he has the time and energy to present structured evidence, in case it is warranted.
However, Deagonx remembers the context of these situations considerably better than I do, so it is up to him if he has the time and energy to present structured evidence, in case it is warranted.
- 7,577
- 14,104
These comments represent that. I think they paint a good picture of the situation with these members.
Like I said in the first comment about this issue, it's not a simple "smoking gun" kind of assessment like with the proof of vote manipulation. It's an impression gathered over a period of time, and the point is to try and illustrate the incidents that led to that conclusion to see if others agree. I'm not infallible, all I can do is provide a good-faith assessment of what happened and why it led me to the conclusions that it did.
More importantly, this discussion isn't about whether their opinions were wrong or whether they misinterpreted things. It's about a pattern of conduct and consistently unreasonable bad-faith arguments.
I strongly agree with this. It's unfortunate that despite my attempts to emphasize this part of things the discussion primarily revolved around the FRA farming and not the fact that we're here in this thread because the group tried to get me banned on the basis of pointing out that they were collaborating with Xear and were asking people for agrees.
Similar threads
