- 11,056
- 19,449
Refresh your browser, it isn't there anymore.bro can't you see it?
Tier 0
vsbattles.fandom.com
-
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
- 12,802
- 5,936
i feel like we're looking at something different. does yours say, "user blog: 0818NB/leo randell"?
- 11,056
- 19,449
No
- 31,582
- 28,037
I don't see it either. Just wait a while.
- 12,802
- 5,936
It really isn't supposed to be there
- 31,582
- 28,037
It's not there.
- 12,802
- 5,936
i feel like its some sort of glitch. sadly, i cant send the screenshot on what is on my screen because of the rules here
Transcending
He/Him- 1,998
- 1,524
I would like to report @Deagonx for falsely accusing myself, @Xearsay, and @Beyond_transcending in this thread- https://vsbattles.com/goto/post?id=5181870. I would also like to report him for his toxic behavior in this thread- https://vsbattles.com/threads/lucifer-dream-and-michael-downgrade.143657/
If the staff feels like I also broke some rules, I will gladly take a warning or a block, depending on how severe they happen to be, but I feel like Deagon definitely deserves a harsh punishment.
If the staff feels like I also broke some rules, I will gladly take a warning or a block, depending on how severe they happen to be, but I feel like Deagon definitely deserves a harsh punishment.
Last edited:
- 7,904
- 14,966
For obvious reasons, I disagree with the above complaint. I didn't make a false accusation
For context: Beyond_Transcending posted in the General Request thread asking for some closed CRTs by Transcending and Xearsay to be reopened, and in particular made the claim that they had far more agreements than disagreements.
I had/have two objections to this. The first is that this group has been soliciting agrees from friends of theirs on Discord, which might not itself be an issue, but it made the claim of "more agreements than disagreements" seem disingenuous at the very least. To my surprise, instead of admitting that this was happening they claimed I was making a false accusation.
I was a moderator of a discord server that they were in so I have firsthand knowledge that this is the case. Transcending and B_T have asked on multiple occasions for their discord friends to make VSBW user accounts for agreements in threads. I think it's very problematic to lie about this and going as far as to accuse me of making a false accusation in RVR is seriously crossing a line.
There are more screenshots of this kind of behavior, but these two are a particularly compelling illustration of it. Lord of Order is Beyond_Transcending and 1.0 is Transcending. They are directly asking people to make/use VSBW accounts and help argue on behalf of his threads. Several of them have in fact made accounts here that have very few posts, most of which are simply saying "I agree" on his threads.
Cat - "Tetrahedron1234" on VSBW, 11 posts, about half of them just say "I agree" on Transcending's threads
Samael89 - "Samael24567" on VSBW, 6 posts, 2 of them are just saying "I agree" on Transcending's threads.
Owner-Sama "Loki" on VSBW, 3 posts, all of them are just saying "I agree" on Transcending's threads.
I reiterate, this may not necessarily be against the rules, but I did not make it up or make a false accusation.
As far as xearsay is concerned, he is not in this discord server so I cannot speak to his direct actions, but I have indirect reasons to believe he's a part of the same situation, from things also said in the Discord and due to the fact that he, along with the duo above, have been aggressively arguing in tandem with eachother on threads.
I do find it odd that, instead of simply admitting that this was occurring and saying it was just collaboration, all of them called me a false accuser and have now gone as far as to bring it up in RVR? If it was really something innocent and collaborative, why lie and try to get me in trouble for bringing it up?
As to this:
I will be the first to admit that things can get tense during a debate and hostility can come out, but I strongly feel in this case that it's being overstated.
This group has been spamming very poorly reasoning DC CRTs for a while now and engaging in tedious bad faith arguments in response to every detractor. I am not the only person to become frustrated.
All in all, I don't think this trio of posters has a valid claim of victimhood or anything like that. Everything I said was the truth and it's pretty clearly evident from their behavior and statements.
Moreover, they arent engaging productively or reasonably on the forum. They have a specific bone to pick and it's been like whack a mole with their CRTs. As soon as one gets rejected another equally poor CRT gets posted, leading to an equally silly debate in which all 3 of them tag-team with tedious nonsense towards anyone who points out the flaws in their arguments.
Anyways, that's all I have to say on the matter. I'm sure they will be trying to make a big thing of this, but I've said my piece and I'll let staff make their decisions.
Last edited:
Transcending
He/Him- 1,998
- 1,524
I didn't solicit agreements. As I proved in the All-Purpose thread, I asked them to give input, and at times told them to "agree or disagree with a reasoning" or something along those words.
We didn't ask for agreements. Look at your own screenshots. My first two comments were in reference to Cat and BT, both of whom had already agreed with me with their own free will. Even if you ignore what they said on VSBW, they have stated that they personally agree to it outside.
So I asked them if they could argue for me against team ups(because I felt you and Ant were tagging against me). That's all.
As for the other thread, I did ping Cat/Erm, but Cat/Erm had already agreed with the thread by that point, which is why I asked. Homelander-Kun doesn't have an account(I pinged him because he's one of my best friends and I wanted someone to calm me), and the owner powers thing was obviously a joke as he's only the owner of the server.
Also notice how I said "do something" instead of "agree"? I was again, asking for INPUT, not asking for AGREEMENTS, which is the distinction here. Equating asking for input to asking for agreements is terrible logic, I have posted my CRT in the unofficial VSBW server which we both know about. Are you gonna say any agreement I get is invalid because that server contains most people from this website? And I am not the only one who has posted CRTs there btw.
I only ask them to help me in arguments if people team up on me, and if they actually agree with me. This is the key distinction here, I won't deny that I have linked CRTs to people, but I didn't ask them to agree. I asked them to give their input, also giving them the option to disagree. I posted some examples in the All-purpose thread, but here's another- https://media.discordapp.net/attach...24079275659265/Screenshot_20221023-114242.jpg
This is wrong. There are about 20 posts of his, out of which 17 wasn't saying "I agree".
Not exactly. He said "seems legit" to one and said another was valid. His other 4 messages relate to Bleach and other verses. If he wasn't a good member of his own, and just existed to agree with me, he wouldn't have done those.
Sure but I didn't ask him to agree, he did so with his own free will. Here are the screenshots of me asking for input, not agreements-
You did and you are misinterpreting my argument. I never said that I didn't ask people to give input in my threads, I said I didn't ask people to agree with me. Major difference.
All three of your screenshots were addressed by me before. They were all out of context and/or irrelevant
We neither spammed CRTs nor did we do it for a while. Xearsay's Mandrakk CRT came months earlier than my Mandrakk one. My Mandrakk one, Lucifer one, and Xearsay's Source one did come in succession but in the all-purpose thread I explained why that was the case, and 3 threads aren't spamming, especially since we only created a thread after another was locked.
Even if you disagree with our CRTs, think they have poor reasoning, and think we argue in bad faith, that does not give you the right to call us "delusional" and such. It's plain toxicity and insulting.
This is again, a plain disagreement from you. Doesn't give you the right to insult us.
- 31,639
- 34,674
I need to sleep soon since I need to wake up early for work tomorrow, and don't have time to go over this. But at the moment, and based on the statements I have followed thus far, I don't think either side as done or said anything ban worthy and it seems to be mostly misunderstandings here and there at best.
- 181
- 278
He didn't ask them to agree, dunno where you got that from, he only asked to give input. Samael, Erm, Owner-Kun and all actually agree with Transcending' CRT. More false accusations.
Transcending
He/Him- 1,998
- 1,524
- 168,530
- 77,289
- Thread starter
- #15,055
Deagonx provided the following information to me in private, so I obviously think that he has just been stating the truth as he perceives it on good factual basis, that he has not done anything wrong here, and that the other side of the argument is being a much bigger problem.If I post anything else in the thread, they're going to gang up on me again and I don't want to add any more fuel to the fire. However, I went through the discord server and found some more instances of them pretty obviously coordinating support for their CRTs, going as far as to ask other members in the discord to join for the express purpose of helping their threads get pushed through.
Also apparently I got their usernames flipped. 1.0 is Transcending, Lord of Order is Beyond_Transcending.
For that last screenshot, several of the users he tagged did end up making accounts and posting on his threads to say they agree, which is why I think it's bogus for him to come into the Request thread and say "10 people agreed!" because he was literally recruiting people to do so.
Cat - "Tetrahedron1234" on VSBW, 11 posts, about half of them just say "I agree" on Transcending's threads
Samael89 - "Samael24567" on VSBW, 6 posts, 2 of them are just saying "I agree" on Transcending's threads.
Owner-Sama "Loki" on VSBW, 3 posts, all of them are just saying "I agree" on Transcending's threads.
It's pretty overt.
Also, for the record, we had to spend a total of 599 posts of arguing in their last three threads, and as far as I am aware their arguments were very repetitively addressed and debunked, so it isn't like the threads were suddenly closed for no good reason. We simply cannot waste extreme amounts of time on very similar arguments over and over again while they are stonewalling.
Last edited:
Transcending
He/Him- 1,998
- 1,524
I will post my response in an hour
- 7,904
- 14,966
From my perspective, I do not believe their collaborative efforts are inherently a problem as many users do that. I also don't think the way they engage in discussions is per se rulebreaking as they're far from the only group of users to do so.
However, I did think that using # of agreements as a key part of a complaint about the threads being closed seems problematic given the fact that they are soliciting FRAs from their discord friends. I also think they should not have hijacked the General Request thread as a venue for their frustration about their CRTs failing.
More importantly, the decision to pretend they haven't been collaborating for FRAs in Discord when they plainly have, and for all of them to pretend they're being falsely accused of something and bringing me up in the RVR thread, is a serious issue in my opinion.
And over the long run, this game of whack-a-mole with sub-par CRTs and bad faith arguing is becoming a significant time-waster for DC-involved members, amplified by the fact that they are convincing their Discord friends to make accounts here to support their threads and to argue on their behalf at times.
Whatever the decision is, I'm fine with it, but I am especially concerned about this collective response to pretend a false accusation has been made rather than just admit they've been working together to get CRTs passed.
And to clarify one point, I am not implying that these users don't actually agree with the threads. Rather, recruiting outside users to create a false image of community consensus, and then using this facade to formulate a complaint against an Admin about closing a thread "lots of people agree with" seems like an exploitative strategy, and all of them playing innocent when called out on it is also a problem.
Last edited:
- 168,530
- 77,289
- Thread starter
- #15,058
Yes, the blatant dishonesty and distortion of what has actually happened here, combined with causing lots of drama and trying to get a rational, helpful, and productive member banned seem like the more serious issues here.
Hasty12345
Username Only- 5,357
- 4,199
If Deagon's viewpoints didn't often align with yours, would you view him as a "rational, helpful, and productive member"?
- 7,904
- 14,966
My viewpoints often do not align with Ants. We agree on some things, sure, but we've had plenty of disagreements of our own during the cosmology revision project.
However, a willingness to engage reasonably with evidence goes a long way. Ultima and I also disagree on a lot of subjects, but we are still able to find common ground in our perspectives and have debates that don't turn into a circus.
More importantly, interjecting in this thread to lob an accusation of bias against staff is not productive.
- 181
- 278
What I said wasn't incorrect, Ant closed the Barbatos & Mandrakk and Xersay's Source thread without any coherent reason.From my perspective, I do not believe their collaborative efforts are inherently a problem as many users do that. I also don't think the way they engage in discussions is per se rulebreaking as they're far from the only group of users to do so.
However, I did think that using # of agreements as a key part of a complaint about the threads being closed seems problematic given the fact that they are soliciting FRAs from their discord friends. I also think they should not have hijacked the General Request thread as a venue for their frustration about their CRTs failing.
More importantly, the decision to pretend they haven't been collaborating for FRAs in Discord when they plainly have, and for all of them to pretend they're being falsely accused of something and bringing me up in the RVR thread, is a serious issue in my opinion.
And over the long run, this game of whack-a-mole with sub-par CRTs and bad faith arguing is becoming a significant time-waster for DC-involved members, amplified by the fact that they are convincing their Discord friends to make accounts here to support their threads and to argue on their behalf at times.
Whatever the decision is, I'm fine with it, but I am especially concerned about this collective response to pretend a false accusation has been made rather than just admit they've been working together to get CRTs passed.
And to clarify one point, I am not implying that these users don't actually agree with the threads. Rather, recruiting outside users to create a false image of community consensus, and then using this facade to formulate a complaint against an Admin about closing a thread "lots of people agree with" seems like an exploitative strategy, and all of them playing innocent when called out on it is also a problem.
The other screenshots are out of context, me and them all already agreed with Transcending CRT. Transcending just told them to say their opinion. They were new in VSBW, so they didn't know.
Hasty12345
Username Only- 5,357
- 4,199
I've noticed you can be just as toxic as any other member mentioned here, and Ant's comment here is just pure bias as he seemingly just ignores your toxicity and acts like your different from all the other toxic comic fans.
- 168,530
- 77,289
- Thread starter
- #15,063
We have repeatedly disagreed, but he has been willing to help out a lot and been very rational and dedicated in this regard.
It wouldn't hurt if he tries to be more diplomatic at times though.
Hasty12345
Username Only- 5,357
- 4,199
All the members mentioned in this incident are rational, the only difference is your attitude towards Deagon compared to the other group.
Transcending
He/Him- 1,998
- 1,524
Is this verifiable?
It wouldn't have become a circus if you hadn't started becoming toxic in the first place.
- 168,530
- 77,289
- Thread starter
- #15,066
The other group is being extremely unreasonable, misrepresents information, organises gang-ups, and is not nearly as well-considered as Deagonx has become, in my experience. However, again, he could be more diplomatic at times.
As for toxicity, he doesn't come within lightyears of the superhero comic book upgrade fanatic trolls who went outright extremely illegal in the systematic harrassment of me for several years.
As for toxicity, he doesn't come within lightyears of the superhero comic book upgrade fanatic trolls who went outright extremely illegal in the systematic harrassment of me for several years.
Hasty12345
Username Only- 5,357
- 4,199
For the record, I think all these members tend to be as toxic as each other, and probably all deserve punishment. I'm simply questioning Ant's comments given the only actual difference is appearance of Deagon's his viewpoints often aligning.
- 168,530
- 77,289
- Thread starter
- #15,068
Deagonx wanted to downgrade DC Comics to a far greater degree than myself when he first came to this community, and I had to rein that in a lot in private during our project.
I don't mind high statistics in themselves. I just want them to be based on blatant feats or explanations, and don't want them to severely contradict the actual stories by stacking completely unrelated author takes on top of each other.
Transcending
He/Him- 1,998
- 1,524
And let me ask, how many times have you warned him of this?
- 7,904
- 14,966
If you see me behaving in a way that warrants objection that isn't being addressed by mods, you should report the comment or bring it up here. Making a vague unspecified claim of toxicity is impossible to respond to.
Transcending
He/Him- 1,998
- 1,524
When he first joined the community. He's clearly not trying to go that down after all these years
Hasty12345
Username Only- 5,357
- 4,199
Not everyone who leans towards higher interpretations of comic book characters fall into this category. That being said, those people are assholes and you nor anyone deserve being harassed, especially for such a stupid topic like comic book character stats.
Transcending
He/Him- 1,998
- 1,524
You do realize two of the threads we asked to be opened were downgrades supporting LOWER statistics?
- 7,904
- 14,966
This is not about Ant or generic complaints about the workings of the forum, nor is it a venue for every like-minded user to come dogpiling onto Ant or myself.
You claimed I made false accusations. I've given my perspective on the matter and provided clear evidence. As to the claims of toxicity, the mods themselves can review the threads in question and make an assessment. This thread is turning into the same kind of circus that all of those CRTs turned into, and it's not a productive use of our time.
You claimed I made false accusations. I've given my perspective on the matter and provided clear evidence. As to the claims of toxicity, the mods themselves can review the threads in question and make an assessment. This thread is turning into the same kind of circus that all of those CRTs turned into, and it's not a productive use of our time.
- 1,304
- 1,041
Two of the threads were downgrades. And the one upgrade thread was filled with scans that were being used as a basis.
- 168,530
- 77,289
- Thread starter
- #15,076
He hasn't broken our rules as far as I have noticed, but if I do think that he goes over the line, I will warn him, yes.
Well, as far as I understood, the arguments within them had been excessively debunked, after which the threads were going in pointless circles, and as I mentioned to you elsewhere, it would be much better to not have multiple drastic cosmic DC Comics revision threads when we will hopefully soon put out a map for overturning the entire structure, so it would be better to postpone them until afterwards.
- 168,530
- 77,289
- Thread starter
- #15,078
Well, you can probably resume the revisions later. All of this seemed to create chaos at a very inappropriate time though.
- 168,530
- 77,289
- Thread starter
- #15,079
That is correct, yes. Unlike him, I don't mind high statistics. I am just allergic to chain power-scaling and cosmology-stacking between hundreds of writers that have almost no coherence between them.
- 7,904
- 14,966
Rightfully so. Even among the staff members that have disagreed with splitting the cosmology there is still recognition that this is an issue, the only disagreement is how best to handle it.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Featured
- Locked
