-
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
- 7,904
- 14,966
My personal thinking for the matter of trying to have me banned was 3-6 months. I can accept it being on the shorter side of that, but 1 month for a group effort to have me banned for exposing this didn't sit right with me so I would be grateful for something firmer.
Hasty12345
Username Only- 5,350
- 4,197
Vote manipulation aside, as I only want to focus on the “misleading premises” and bad faith arguing point.
I fail to see how this can’t just be flipped back onto you. In the Lucifer downgrade thread you basically just asserted your position is the more reasonable interpretation based on your understanding of the text, and refused to actually provide evidence for anything you were saying for a whole page, whilst accusing the people asking for evidence of arguing in bad faith. And when you weren’t accusing them of arguing in bad faith, you basically insulted them by making statements like “no reasonable person would read the scan and ….”.
edit: just because you were more subtle with your insults and held the more reasonable position, doesn’t mean what you were saying wasn’t appalling debate etiquette, nor does it mean the opposing side were arguing in bad faith because they disagreed with your interpretation.
- 168,514
- 77,231
- Thread starter
- #15,364
Well, I am personally fine with 3 months.
Hasty12345
Username Only- 5,350
- 4,197
I personally don’t think anyone should be punished for “arguing in bad faith” or “acting on misleading premises” in this scenario, and if we are, we shouldn’t exclude Deagon for his conduct in these debates, specifically on the Lucifer thread, and he should share in the punishment as they were all as bad as each other on that thread.
- 7,904
- 14,966
You're sort of missing the point here. The reason I stopped engaging in the actual arguments was due to the bad-faith stonewalling we are referring to. That's why a description of the discussion is being provided for the other admins to make their own assessments.
I reached a point where it was clear that they were not willing to be reasonable, and I decided there was nothing to be gained from continuing to engage with their arguments rather than wait for input from mods, because as far as I was concerned it was self-evident that their arguments were bad-faith and that the pertinent mods would see through it immediately.
- 31,633
- 34,651
This is fine with me yes.
Hasty12345
Username Only- 5,350
- 4,197
And now again it’s only “bad faith stonewalling” because of you thinking your interpretation of the text was more reasonable/valid than theirs. I was actively watching the thread and I don’t agree with the idea they were somehow acting in bad faith, the most bad faith behaviour on the thread in my eyes actually came from you, whether you should be punished or not I don’t think so, but I also don’t think they should. No one on that thread as far as I can tell actually broke any rules that would warrant a ban, and if we’re gonna call “bad faith debating” bannable, you’re no better then they are, you were just doing other things that can constitute “arguing in bad faith”.
Hasty12345
Username Only- 5,350
- 4,197
This matter has dragged on so much it’s gotten to the point it feels like I’m reading posts written by toddlers who won’t drop it. And this “arguing I’m bad faith” bs keeps being brought up when it’s blatant you guys just don’t like each other and want the other person/group banned for no reason.
(vote manipulation aside)
(vote manipulation aside)
- 7,904
- 14,966
Okay. Nonetheless, I think they certainly were. That's why I gave my assessment of the matter when I was asked, and Ant has asked the mods to draw their own conclusions on the matter.
Perhaps it has been dragged on due to the unsolicited participation of users who are not involved in it in any way? Just a thought.
- 168,514
- 77,231
- Thread starter
- #15,371
Okay. Feel free to lift the ban in question then.
- 1,304
- 1,041
I addressed this already on the last page and on the beginning of this one. And as I showcased, the last time you tried to do this stuff you were told by multiple users and staff to knock it off. As you were trying to get me topic banned because you believe that I wank DC. As evident from your own comments.
Antvasima - “I also recall that Xearsay has a history of relentlessly attempting to exaggerate tiers of characters that he likes as much as possible though.”
Antvasima - “All that I really said about Xearsay was that I do not trust him given his history of relentlessly arguing for as high statistics as possible and seemingly misrepresenting information. That is it.”
And this is far from the truth as I’ve been against many high tier DC cosmic characters being upgraded and have even made and agreed with multiple threads that seeked to downgrade high tier DC cosmic characters.
Including characters like The Presence, The Source, CAS, The Endless, Michael, and Lucifer.
Now have I at times gotten things wrong? Of course, everyone has. No one is always right about everything, and I myself have admitted when I was wrong on things. However to try and paint me as some type of troll or person who’s being deliberately dishonest in threads is not evident.
- 168,514
- 77,231
- Thread starter
- #15,373
Even if we put aside the issue of arguing in bad faith during content revision threads, they were blatantly lying in order to try to get Deagonx banned, and refusing to admit it even after they were presented with evidence. I think that warrants a longer ban than just 1 month.
- 168,514
- 77,231
- Thread starter
- #15,374
The main issue for me was when I was told that you repeatedly severely misrepresented what your linked scans actually said, and then refused to ever let go of the issue.
- 7,904
- 14,966
Which, to be clear, he certainly did and continues to do. And I fully endorse the assessment that he and the other members of the group stonewall and argue in bad faith, and I do not believe his involvement in the aforementioned scheme is coincidental despite what he may claim.
- 168,514
- 77,231
- Thread starter
- #15,376
Well, it doesn't seem like further discussing the bad faith arguing issue will lead anywhere, unless you prepare very convincing arguments for this for later, and consider it a worthwhile focus for your available time.
I do think that 3 months long blocks seem more reasonable than just 1 month for their already proven transgressions though.
I do think that 3 months long blocks seem more reasonable than just 1 month for their already proven transgressions though.
Hasty12345
Username Only- 5,350
- 4,197
I just think we should be consistent with how we apply these rules and that no one should be left out of punishment.
I won’t sit here and defend those who manipulated votes, however I will say that Deagon presented us with a bunch of cropped screenshots from discord that had no context whatsoever. Whilst a Judgement on that matter has already been reached, I wouldn’t act like the most compelling evidence was brought. Given no one here has the full context as to what happened offsite, I’d personally be hesitant to give a harsher punishment.
it’s very clear to me that nothing here is objective and both sides are fuelled by bias against the other.
You could ban half the wiki user base for this…
despite that, I don’t actually think Xearsay has done that to the extent that warrants a ban, even if his tendency is to link scans in an unconventional way at to reach maybe high-balled conclusions, he’s never broken any rules and his debate etiquette is always good from my experience. I think he nets positive for his contributions to the community.
- 31,633
- 34,651
I have done so.
- 18,393
- 14,323
“Bolded text”, I have no clue how is this relevant right now, and somehow it is unfair to most of the members.
Staff should and must be neutral in these cases, what your personal belief is, should be extraneous.
Honestly, this should be dealt with. Favoritism should be disallowed here.
And also in that thread, you were the only staff who disagreed as far and closed the thread even after you pinged staff members to give their inputs.
It was only two verse supporters arguing, I have no clue how is this fair to OP who sought more attention from other members.
I am not here saying, I am agreeing with CRT, because obviously, the CRT was in bad timing, and the cosmology is not finished yet.
But this “favoritism” and especially in threads and RvR should be stopped. The staff should be neutral and patient and independent.
- 7,904
- 14,966
What context, precisely, is needed to understand the meaning of something like "When we make CRTs, we need to work together as a team to progress them" and "Don't argue against [Transcending's] CRTs please" or "make an account on VSBW to agree with my CRT and I'll do it?"
Calling it "out of context" is such a red herring, you're drawing blind suspicion to something for no reason. The meaning of the messages was clear, and even their defense of themselves didn't alter the meaning of the phrases.
"unconventional" seems like an incredibly generous way to say "in a way that directly adds words that weren't present in the scan so that it would be interpreted as supporting his conclusion."
Being neutral does not mean you can't come to a conclusion about something.
The staff members he pinged had over a week to respond to the thread and none did. The arguments were responded to thoroughly and the likelihood of them coming to a different conclusion was not high enough to warrant pinging them constantly for a single thread.
More importantly, this is not the venue for having this discussion.
- 1,304
- 1,041
Ok, and you’ve also been told the exact opposite of this by other users. However you completely ignored those other people and instead let an opinion from one person who doesn’t like me, dictate your entire view on me.
- 18,393
- 14,323
I don't know what this supposes to mean, being neutral means being independent of both parties regardless of their favoritism and Ant explicitly stated the opposite of his duty as a staff member.
Wrong, I was there and watching the thread, many threads take weeks, months and there are even years. How does it excuse to close a thread where only two verse supporters argue with reasonable points and get closed because Ant believes in you more?
And it is a venue, Ant used this argument to defend your side.
- 7,904
- 14,966
That's not really an accurate assessment of what happened. From my perspective it seemed that the users who were "defending you" only had a surface awareness of the situation and were simply reflexively lashing out at Ant due to their pre-existing reservations with his approach to DC. It wasn't as though these people actually addressed any of the specific pieces of evidence and said "he seems to be describing this correctly."
I think this is sort of begging the question. You're assuming that his assessment is favoritism instead of neutral.
If his assessment was that the arguments are bad, and the discussion essentially only drew the attention of myself and the OP (and his friends he recruited to agree with him), and the other staff were not willing to participate, is the preferred alternative to have him "bump" it months and months until another staff member decides to take interest? That doesn't seem like a realistic or practical way to run things.
- 168,514
- 77,231
- Thread starter
- #15,384
We cannot continue to derail this thread forever, and I am extremely overworked with tasks both within this community and IRL. Let our staff decide if we should extend the 1 month block or not and permanently drop this topic please.
Also, for the record, I still really like both the Post-Crisis version of DC Comics and the Pre-Quesada version of of Marvel Comics, and have read many thousand of their comic books over the years. I just genuinely disagree with a part of our scaling for these verses despite these facts. That is all.
Also, for the record, I still really like both the Post-Crisis version of DC Comics and the Pre-Quesada version of of Marvel Comics, and have read many thousand of their comic books over the years. I just genuinely disagree with a part of our scaling for these verses despite these facts. That is all.
- 168,514
- 77,231
- Thread starter
- #15,385
Thank you for helping out.
- 168,514
- 77,231
- Thread starter
- #15,387
The arguments in those threads reached roughly 600 posts, and I was told that they were very repetitive and stonewalling, and we couldn't indulge them forever, but that is not what this rule-violation thread should be focused on, so let's immediately drop this discussion. Thank you.
- 168,514
- 77,231
- Thread starter
- #15,388
I would appreciate if our staff systematically deletes any further derailing messages in this thread from this point onwards, and help us decide if the 1 month bans should be extended.
- 31,633
- 34,651
My hands are full at the moment, but I do agree that this topic has literally filled up more than 2 pages and I there is so much derailed text. But I thought I agreed with what someone like Moritzva said regarding the bans but I agree 1 month seems too lenient. But forgot which was the the suggested ban length. Like 3 months perhaps?
- 168,514
- 77,231
- Thread starter
- #15,390
A 3 months ban length seems fine to me.
Would any of our staff members be willing to delete all of the derailing posts in this discussion please? Or is it better to let them remain?
Would any of our staff members be willing to delete all of the derailing posts in this discussion please? Or is it better to let them remain?
- 2,033
- 3,263
What if the issue emerges again, and what they said could be relevant again?
- 2,033
- 3,263
I was just thinking that if someone brings up the same issue, or a different one but still similar to this one, which also includes the same people in the argument. Are there any chances perhaps that their discussions above can be used, to maybe find contradictions?
Well, I can't think of any specific uses, but could their statements be possibly used in the future? Just in case the same people bring up the topic again.
Well, I can't think of any specific uses, but could their statements be possibly used in the future? Just in case the same people bring up the topic again.
- 7,904
- 14,966
I think he's primarily focused on the redundant back and forth that clogged up the thread. The initial clarifications of people's positions are probably fine to stay, but at various points it very quickly devolved into "no u" bickering that served no purpose, since they were largely just repeats/reassertions of the originals.
- 168,514
- 77,231
- Thread starter
- #15,395
Okay. I suppose that the old arguments can probably stay then.
Also, @PairusDragonoid sent me a new message to clarify his viewpoints. Given what he said there, combined with that his offensive message was deleted by him, I don't think that more than a 1 month block seems necessary.
https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/M...eadId=4400000000003460972#4400000000012446772
Also, @PairusDragonoid sent me a new message to clarify his viewpoints. Given what he said there, combined with that his offensive message was deleted by him, I don't think that more than a 1 month block seems necessary.
https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/M...eadId=4400000000003460972#4400000000012446772
- 8,904
- 3,457
I get the feeling that this is a young and rather poorly-spoken user from his message. While he is entitled to his beliefs, and did at least go on record to say he doesn't have anything against LGBT people and only dislikes "wokeness" (which could mean literally anything, tbh). That being said, what he said was clearly out of line and inflammatory even then.
First off, we really need to actually let people make their arguments before we ban them. I really don't get why we repeatedly ban before letting the user actually speak for themselves. It's important for determining punishment.
Second off, how long is his current ban? I can definitely see a 1-2 month ban for what he said and the clarification, given he did not abjectly insult people but rather the fact that they "get a month" which... I can't say that's outright homophobic, but it's definitely sitting on the line.
Give the comment, I am personally of the position that we'd want to deliver a ban of either one or two months.
- 31,575
- 28,025
The currently applied ban is 1 month.
- 8,904
- 3,457
I think that's fine. The comment was inflammatory but not outright anti-lgbt, just anti-lgbtgettingtheirownmonth. Still rude and against the rules, but not as bad as previous offenses. Not to mention, the comment was on his own wall and was deleted soon after posting, so I'd like to say he realized he ****** up, which helps.
- 22,452
- 18,669
It wasn't deleted soon after.
He posted it on June 10th, and it was deleted August 1st.
Still, he probably realised he ****** up.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Featured
- Locked
