• 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)

Reporting @Reiner due to them blatantly ignoring a set standard for the wiki.

Context: For a character from the Maou Gaukin verse, it has been discussed whenever them regenerating from body + soul destruction is Low or Mid Godly.

Issue is that we got an entire discussion even here for Undertale characters having the regeneration under this very basis, and at the end it was decided it would be just Low Godly as you can see in current profiles.

The problem? @Reiner explicitly said that they do not care and that they find the standard of the wiki wrong, willing to forcefully impose their own standard.

This is pretty much ignoring a standard which made discussions before, so I need staff to help about this.
 
StrymULTRA said:
Reporting @Reiner due to them blatantly ignoring a set standard for the wiki.

Context: For a character from the Maou Gaukin verse, it has been discussed whenever them regenerating from body + soul destruction is Low or Mid Godly.

Issue is that we got an entire discussion even here for Undertale characters having the regeneration under this very basis, and at the end it was decided it would be just Low Godly as you can see in current profiles.

The problem? @Reiner explicitly said that they do not care and that they find the standard of the wiki wrong, willing to forcefully impose their own standard.

This is pretty much ignoring a standard which made discussions before, so I need staff to help about this.
Click to expand...
... I do particularly remember saying that if body and soul have been Destroyed then there mind couldn't exist, as all concious activities that ties to a character cannot be performed (giving a reasoning for why it's Mid Godly) not only that but it being Low Godly contradicts Low Godly definition. The interpretation is quite straightforward, so I don't know if I set the new standard as it's just what is written. As for frisk, I don't know if anyone brought this argument that mind cannot exist if body and soul doesn't and it being Low godly contradicts our pages.

That said, gtg.
 
Okay, given that it's been like a day since the last "turn the RVR into a venue for arguing about your CRT" event, I'm going to nip this in the bud and prevent further back and forth about the topic of regeneration or these respective verses. This is a thread meant to discuss alleged misconduct, not to rehash an earlier debate.

I doubt this transgression rises to the level of punishment, but I'll let more informed staff members iron out the concern about an ignored standard or how it ought to be applied.

With that said, challenging wiki standards is not a bad thing unto itself. We improved and revise our standards all the time, and saying "it's wiki standard" is not the end of a discussion. It is often the case that a CRT can bring to light a sub-par standard, where it is determined that the current standard has a use case that leads to something unreasonable, and needs to be adjusted.
 
 
Regidian said:
I have a question. If someone try to downgrade a verse he didn't even read, trying to downgrade the whole verse without even know most of the feat and is using his own translation that we can prove is modifying thing. He get banned?
Click to expand...
If they are new, I would more so educate them. We don't ban newbies just for not knowing better without warning. Now if they did so constantly despite being informed left and right by the community and/or ignored staff warnings. In which they basically show they are blatant downplay for the sake of downplay advocates that legit try to force feed it down everyone's throats (Or a common nickname for those people is being a LordXcano Jr), then it would be a different story.

Also, I agree with Deagonx's decision that it doesn't seem report worthy and more or less appears to be over disagreements on content revisions.
 
Another note is that there have been multiple complaints about @Jinx666 regarding content revisions on RWBY. Here, here, and here just to name a few.

While individually, she hasn't said anything like uber extreme and she is entitled to her opinion. She has a pretty lengthy history of being borderline ignorant on RWBY content revision threads and often ignores some pretty blatant feats that are right in front of her or some canon lore statements that are confirmed by the creators. And she does from time to time either belittle the intelligence of those who disagree with her, strawman people when making some fairly valid comparisons, or accuse people of lying despite them either showing some truthful evidence and/or stating their own honest opinions. And even on threads where Damage thought she was making fair points, he still had complaints about her methods such as quintuple posting or getting too heated in debates. I also am not going to say she is the only one guilty of being too heated, she is clearly the one who tends to be instigating some heated conflicts.

I was in a private discussion, and Antvasima, @Maverick_Zero_X and @Sir_Ovens were in the discussion too. And based on the face value evidence, the staff seemed to generally agree that giving Jinx a 3 month topic ban from RWBY revisions threads seems like a fine amount of time to cool off. I pinged her to let her know and possibly give her a chance, but she must behave if she wants to defend herself. And of course other staff members who either have observed some threads and/or take a look at the issue may also share their side if they have differing opinions.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
Another note is that there have been multiple complaints about @Jinx666 regarding content revisions on RWBY. Here, here, and here just to name a few.

While individually, she hasn't said anything like uber extreme and she is entitled to her opinion. She has a pretty lengthy history of being borderline ignorant on RWBY content revision threads and often ignores some pretty blatant feats that are right in front of her or some canon lore statements that are confirmed by the creators. And she does from time to time either belittle the intelligence of those who disagree with her, strawman people when making some fairly valid comparisons, or accuse people of lying despite them either showing some truthful evidence and/or stating their own honest opinions. And even on threads where Damage thought she was making fair points, he still had complaints about her methods such as quintuple posting or getting too heated in debates. I also am not going to say she is the only one guilty of being too heated, she is clearly the one who tends to be instigating some heated conflicts.

I was in a private discussion, and Antvasima, @Maverick_Zero_X and @Sir_Ovens were in the discussion too. And based on the face value evidence, the staff seemed to generally agree that giving Jinx a 3 month topic ban from RWBY revisions threads seems like a fine amount of time to cool off. I pinged her to let her know and possibly give her a chance, but she must behave if she wants to defend herself. And of course other staff members who either have observed some threads and/or take a look at the issue may also share their side if they have differing opinions.
Click to expand...
This still makes sense to me, yes.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
Another note is that there have been multiple complaints about @Jinx666 regarding content revisions on RWBY. Here, here, and here just to name a few.

While individually, she hasn't said anything like uber extreme and she is entitled to her opinion. She has a pretty lengthy history of being borderline ignorant on RWBY content revision threads and often ignores some pretty blatant feats that are right in front of her or some canon lore statements that are confirmed by the creators. And she does from time to time either belittle the intelligence of those who disagree with her, strawman people when making some fairly valid comparisons, or accuse people of lying despite them either showing some truthful evidence and/or stating their own honest opinions. And even on threads where Damage thought she was making fair points, he still had complaints about her methods such as quintuple posting or getting too heated in debates. I also am not going to say she is the only one guilty of being too heated, she is clearly the one who tends to be instigating some heated conflicts.

I was in a private discussion, and Antvasima, @Maverick_Zero_X and @Sir_Ovens were in the discussion too. And based on the face value evidence, the staff seemed to generally agree that giving Jinx a 3 month topic ban from RWBY revisions threads seems like a fine amount of time to cool off. I pinged her to let her know and possibly give her a chance, but she must behave if she wants to defend herself. And of course other staff members who either have observed some threads and/or take a look at the issue may also share their side if they have differing opinions.
Click to expand...
I agree
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
And based on the face value evidence, the staff seemed to generally agree that giving Jinx a 3 month topic ban from RWBY revisions threads seems like a fine amount of time to cool off.
Click to expand...
I do not object to this, as reading through the threads it seems like Jinx has quite a bone to pick with the verse and doesn't seem to handle the pushback very well, and while I can empathize with getting frustrated, you need to be able to rein it in, and if someone repeatedly fails to do so a short topic ban is warranted.

With that said, specifically on the issue of the canonicity of the RWBY x JL Crossover, I found myself in a similar boat where I didn't see exactly what the basis was for it? The clip referenced by Weekly was from before the crossover happened, and was referring to the RWBY comics published by DC that didn't feature any DC characters, not the crossover. And indeed, the recent crossover movie contradicts the comics completely (the Justice League in the movie are not natives of Remnant, they were mysteriously transported there, unlike the version in the crossover comic), and my understanding is that the movie is actually and explicitly canon, so they can't both be canon I think.

I commented in the thread asking about it but didn't get a response. I made a mental note to follow up on it, but I forgot, unfortunately.

I don't really know much about RWBY so I might be totally wrong, but it seems upon investigation that the crossover comic isn't canon and if we are going to treat it as canon I think we need a more solid basis than the interview clipped that affirmed the canonicity of the DC RWBY comics, not the crossover.
 
Last edited:
Deagonx said:
With that said, specifically on the issue of the canonicity of the RWBY x JL Crossover, I found myself in a similar boat where I didn't see exactly what the basis was for it? The clip referenced by Weekly was from before the crossover happened, and was referring to the RWBY comics published by DC that didn't feature any DC characters, not the crossover. And indeed, the recent crossover movie contradicts the comics completely (the Justice League in the movie are not natives of Remnant, they were mysteriously transported there, unlike the version in the crossover comic), and my understanding is that the movie is actually and explicitly canon, so they can't both be canon I think.
Click to expand...
Well, I think that's a topic that should be debated on the main thread. Also, I haven't watched the movie or read the comic so I can't comment. But I believe Weekly brought up the qualifications for a "One-Sided" crossover. But anyway, that is more or less off topic. And it was more so her attitude during the debate rather than the actual debate itself that was getting problematic.

And that wasn't the only topic that was getting controversial, she was also getting annoying by some of the most basic fight scenes, such as the Cinder Vs Ozpin fight, or the Glynda Vs Cinder fight
 
Yeah I can explain it in whatever thread yall want me to but it does qualify for being a one-sided crossover by our crossover standards

This isnt e thread to discuss that tho so lemme know which thread it needs to be explained on
 
Antvasima said:
Well, you need to take our Canon page into account as well.
Click to expand...
It does yeah, not gonna derail after this but to sum it up, RWBY is in the same boat as stuff like Disney Star Wars and League of Legends, where they have a core series and then a bunch of canon extra-media side stories (other shows, comics, books, games, etc.) that are all canon to that core series. The writers for RWBY are very clear on what is and is non-canon to the series
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
Another note is that there have been multiple complaints about @Jinx666 regarding content revisions on RWBY. Here, here, and here just to name a few.

While individually, she hasn't said anything like uber extreme and she is entitled to her opinion. She has a pretty lengthy history of being borderline ignorant on RWBY content revision threads and often ignores some pretty blatant feats that are right in front of her or some canon lore statements that are confirmed by the creators. And she does from time to time either belittle the intelligence of those who disagree with her, strawman people when making some fairly valid comparisons, or accuse people of lying despite them either showing some truthful evidence and/or stating their own honest opinions. And even on threads where Damage thought she was making fair points, he still had complaints about her methods such as quintuple posting or getting too heated in debates. I also am not going to say she is the only one guilty of being too heated, she is clearly the one who tends to be instigating some heated conflicts.

I was in a private discussion, and Antvasima, @Maverick_Zero_X and @Sir_Ovens were in the discussion too. And based on the face value evidence, the staff seemed to generally agree that giving Jinx a 3 month topic ban from RWBY revisions threads seems like a fine amount of time to cool off. I pinged her to let her know and possibly give her a chance, but she must behave if she wants to defend herself. And of course other staff members who either have observed some threads and/or take a look at the issue may also share their side if they have differing opinions.
Click to expand...
Theres a lot i can say against this, but this is extremely untrue. I do get heated, but you literally have Weekly here lying about a source. Its would generally be unfair to punish me and not Weekly for the exact same things, but we all know the special treatment in that regard.

You always just drop an 'I agree with Weekly' so its not like you have an in-depth input about this either. The 'evidence' Weekly is posting is literally NOT about the crossover. We have established this and yet it is blatantly being pushed forward and used, and supported because its Weekly.

'borderline ignorant', is another comment that's just blatant gaslighting when the feats i am against arent blatant in the slightest (We never see Cinder break Ozpin's Shield and it is an assumption, The Geist has never shown intangibility outside of its possession for you to assume it cant be touched normally without aura, which has never been brought up in the show etc.)
I get heated when i realise that Weekly somehow manages to get their way on a ton of assumptions made yeah, and its clear comments and tidbits from replies by others like this dont help in the slightest.
 
Last edited:
Jinx666 said:
Theres a lot i can say against this, but this is extremely untrue. I do get heated, but you literally have Weekly here lying about a source. Its would generally be unfair to punish me and not Weekly for the exact same things, but we all know the special treatment in that regard.

You always just drop an 'I agree with Weekly' so its not like you have an in-depth input about this either. The 'evidence' Weekly is posting is literally NOT about the crossover. We have established this and yet it is blatantly being pushed forward and used, and supported because its Weekly.

'borderline ignorant', is another comment that's just blatant gaslighting when the feats i am against arent blatant in the slightest (We never see Cinder break Ozpin's Shield and it is an assumption, The Geist has never shown intangibility outside of its possession for you to assume it cant be touched normally without aura, which has never been brought up in the show etc.)
I get heated when i realise that Weekly somehow manages to get their way on a ton of assumptions made yeah, and its clear comments and tidbits from replies by others like this dont help in the slightest.
Click to expand...
First of all, you cannot accuse people of "Intentionally lying" unless you have foolproof evidence. Which by foolproof evidence, I mean the ability to read their mind and prove they don't actually believe their own arguments. Weekly gave his side of the story and elaborated why he considered the comic canon such as a 2019 statement about all extended materials being canon, the comic was the only source of reasonable statements that dust doesn't work off the planetary atmosphere, Victor being a canon character within Remnant that discovered this, and so on. And how the contradictions aren't actually contradictions but just a different cast of brand new characters. Such as the JL from the cartoons all being different species from their comic counterparts, them coming from a different dimension as opposed to being native to Remnant, some plot related memories being erased from the cast that seems harder to forget than some characters they briefly met years ago.

Still, there is a different thread Deagonx is debating and is being genuinily respectful. Follow his example more as well as Damage's, they may not be agreeing with Weekly, but they're at least they're doing so respectfully.

Just because I agree with Weekly on a lot of RWBY related topics doesn't mean I haven't been following the thread, reading both sides of the argument. In fact, trying to discredit me because I agree with someone you disagree with is basically Ad Hominin don't you think? Also, I even said you are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but rather it's more so your attitude rather than your reason. Also, I don't care who is the one debating, I care more about evidence, logic, and reason. Also, Weekly was not the only one who elaborated but Spinorr and DaReaperMan argued extensively too. Weekly isn't the only one you're disrespecting here.

"Breaking Ozpin's shields" isn't even something that has to be specifically that for power scaling to take place. She still traded blows with him on fairly equal footing and eventually killed him with her attacks. And she withstood a couple of his attacks too, so her durability also scales to Ozpin's AP likewise. There is definitely a limit to how knit picky one can be about fight scenes and even various people who haven't followed RWBY have voiced saying the fight scenes are too blatant to ignore. As for the Geist example, Damage has a least agrees with some of your points, but your methods such as quintuple posting while debating and what not is the real reason why people wanted you reported. And I know you weren't the only one being "Heated" per say, but you're the one who did it first and using more annoying methods at that. Hence why Firestorm closed it so only Admins can post.
 
Jinx666 said:
Theres a lot i can say against this, but this is extremely untrue. I do get heated, but you literally have Weekly here lying about a source. Its would generally be unfair to punish me and not Weekly for the exact same things, but we all know the special treatment in that regard.

You always just drop an 'I agree with Weekly' so its not like you have an in-depth input about this either. The 'evidence' Weekly is posting is literally NOT about the crossover. We have established this and yet it is blatantly being pushed forward and used, and supported because its Weekly.

'borderline ignorant', is another comment that's just blatant gaslighting when the feats i am against arent blatant in the slightest (We never see Cinder break Ozpin's Shield and it is an assumption, The Geist has never shown intangibility outside of its possession for you to assume it cant be touched normally without aura, which has never been brought up in the show etc.)
I get heated when i realise that Weekly somehow manages to get their way on a ton of assumptions made yeah, and its clear comments and tidbits from replies by others like this dont help in the slightest.
Click to expand...
See, therein lies the problem, you cannot fathom the idea that someone could have a different viewpoint from you, or could disagree with what you think, or could have evidence that contradicts what you think. You immediately jump straight to the conclusion that i must be lying, that i must somehow getting special treatment just because people arent immediately disagreeing with every word i say.

Take the NPI CRT for example, five pages of back and forth bickering, and not once did you ever post a single piece of evidence to support your arguments, it was entirely based on conjecture and assumptions on your part, and every time people agreed that your point was wrong, you didnt concede to it, you just shifted your argument and tried to argue the same thing from a different angle.
  • 'Intangibility is just an adjective but it doesnt actually mean theyre intangible'
  • 'The cast doesnt have NPI, the grimm they kill cant be intangible because they can be hit by the cast'
  • 'Geists arent ghosts and only ghosts can be intangible'
  • 'The geist must only be intangible when its possessing things'
  • 'All evidence that geists are intangible should be disregarded as story inconsistencies because RWBY has bad writing'
And so on and so forth, and these arent even all the things you tried to argue, and still not a single piece of evidence provided to support any of this. And on top of that, you accuse me of lying, yet you actively lied to Damage by bringing up Rosa's intangibility semblance and claiming that it debunks NPI, yet conveniently leaving out that her intangibility is phasing-based, not immaterial-based like the geist or elemental-based like ruby. Ive known you for years Jinx, youve been doing this for so long that ive grown accustomed to how you debate so i can stay calm and collected when we're in the same thread because i know that youre just going to start insulting or ignoring me when things dont go your way. Admittedly i got heated towards the end and but that was because i had to spend 5 pages saying the exact same things over and over again because you actively refuse to listen to anyone but yourself.

When you started to become active in RWBY threads i had hoped you had gotten somewhat better and that we could have civil discussions, i invited you to the discussions because i really thought we were past the types of arguments we had back in the day, but youve stayed the same as you were back then.
 
Last edited:
I think it's probably best I don't speak on the most recent Weekly-oriented drama.

Grand11z has a net total of 5 edits to the wiki, with his edit to Fiddlesticks being a random baseless upgrade. Frankly, if the edit had been more on the trollish side, I would have opted for a permanent ban immediately upon his response to Crab, but I suppose that may be heavy-handed if he was doing what he thought was probably correct; I also support a ban if the disrespect of our rules continues, however.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
Still, there is a different thread Deagonx is debating and is being genuinily respectful. Follow his example more as well as Damage's, they may not be agreeing with Weekly, but they're at least they're doing so respectfully.
Click to expand...
I appreciate that, but I will say that now having interacted with Weekly for the first time, I am a great deal more sympathetic to Jinx's situation and the general manner in which Weekly has tended to engage in the discussion is quite antagonistic. I would also be frustrated to be accused of "ignoring evidence" by accurately pointing out that we have no author statements that address the canonicity of the Justice League crossover, because that is a matter of objective fact, we have a statement that predates its existence by nearly two years, and many many things are capable of changing during that time frame.

To have someone repeatedly state "the authors confirmed it as canon" is rather frustrating when you know the person saying that is well aware that its an anachronism. If you want to argue that the wording was such that it could include a future comic, you should do so without asserting it as fact so dogmatically, or stating in such a way that is overtly dishonest like was referenced above, slyly leaving out the very very overt logical issue with seeing it that way, or accusing others of ignoring evidence by rightfully acknowledging it.

We don't need to rehash that situation here, but I detail all of this to say: It often takes two to tango, and upon reflection I think that Weekly's antics played a significant role in antagonizing Jinx and she should be cut a break for having a sometimes aggressive tone, because at least in the discussions linked that I saw, she never crossed the point of saying anything extremely insulting or severe. I suspect that if I were forced to engage with Weekly on a routine basis, I would also become increasingly frustrated over time and quite possibly would do the same thing.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I would argue that Jinx should be treated more leniently here, perhaps just a one month topic ban. If the three month ban stays, so be it, but I wanted to voice my experience and perspective that I didn't have when I first commented on the matter.
 
Deagonx said:
I appreciate that, but I will say that now having interacted with Weekly for the first time, I am a great deal more sympathetic to Jinx's situation and the general manner in which Weekly has tended to engage in the discussion is quite antagonistic. I would also be frustrated to be accused of "ignoring evidence" by accurately pointing out that we have no author statements that address the canonicity of the Justice League crossover, because that is a matter of objective fact, we have a statement that predates its existence by nearly two years, and many many things are capable of changing during that time frame.

To have someone repeatedly state "the authors confirmed it as canon" is rather frustrating when you know the person saying that is well aware that its an anachronism. If you want to argue that the wording was such that it could include a future comic, you should do so without asserting it as fact so dogmatically, or stating in such a way that is overtly dishonest like was referenced above, slyly leaving out the very very overt logical issue with seeing it that way, or accusing others of ignoring evidence by rightfully acknowledging it.

We don't need to rehash that situation here, but I detail all of this to say: It often takes two to tango, and upon reflection I think that Weekly's antics played a significant role in antagonizing Jinx and she should be cut a break for having a sometimes aggressive tone, because at least in the discussions linked that I saw, she never crossed the point of saying anything extremely insulting or severe. I suspect that if I were forced to engage with Weekly on a routine basis, I would also become increasingly frustrated over time and quite possibly would do the same thing.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I would argue that Jinx should be treated more leniently here, perhaps just a one month topic ban. If the three month ban stays, so be it, but I wanted to voice my experience and perspective that I didn't have when I first commented on the matter.
Click to expand...
Its the exact opposite actually, Jinx more often than not was a major reason for my outbursts back in the day due to her constant antagonistic behavior, she has been reported numerous times before because of this and was actually banned at one point for it.

Also would like to point out here, since it was brought up in the other two threads and was in fact ignored, that the events of the comic have been directly referenced in the show itself. The comic is canon with or without an author statement. Hence my frustration. You'd get frustrated too if you spent over a month straight arguing in multiple 5+ page threads only to have everything you say be repeatedly ignored the entire time.
 
WeeklyBattles said:
that the events of the comic have been directly referenced in the show itself. The comic is canon with or without an author statement. Hence my frustration.
Click to expand...
I think this a rather crucial example given that we just finished figuring this out: This is also blatantly untrue. A supplemental miniseries, not the show, referenced an lore event in 2020 that the comic -- written in 2021 -- incorporated into the story. This is the kind of thing that leads to hostility or frustration: an extremely blatant twisting of the facts to support a desired narrative.

It is genuinely astounding to me that you would use this an example to justify your frustration and/or outbursts.

This is now the second piece of information that you have lied about for the sake of justifying the canonicity of the crossover comic. I really don't think this issue should be overlooked. Jinx is being thread banned for -- among other things -- ignoring evidence, but solely within the context of the canonicity of a single crossover comic which you yourself have claimed is completely irrelevant for tiering, you have now been caught twice fudging information to make it support canonicity when it actually doesn't. I'd say that's an equally compelling argument for a topic ban, if it's literally any indication of how you treat information about topics that actually matter.
 
Deagonx said:
I think this a rather crucial example given that we just finished figuring this out: This is also blatantly untrue. A supplemental miniseries, not the show, referenced an lore event in 2020 that the comic -- written in 2021 -- incorporated into the story. This is the kind of thing that leads to hostility or frustration: an extremely blatant twisting of the facts to support a desired narrative.

It is genuinely astounding to me that you would use this an example to justify your frustration and/or outbursts.

This is now the second piece of information that you have lied about for the sake of justifying the canonicity of the crossover comic. I really don't think this issue should be overlooked. Jinx is being thread banned for -- among other things -- ignoring evidence, but solely within the context of the canonicity of a single crossover comic which you yourself have claimed is completely irrelevant for tiering, you have now been caught twice fudging information to make it support canonicity when it actually doesn't. I'd say that's an equally compelling argument for a topic ban, if it's literally any indication of how you treat information about topics that actually matter.
Click to expand...
Said it on the other thread and I'll say it here, the fact that, even after I admitted to misspeaking and apologizing for it, you're still somehow spinning this as me purposely and maliciously lying, for literally no reason whatsoever as the comic in question holds no bearing over anything in the verse stat or feat-wise, is extremely disingenuous
 
I am accusing you of lying because it is illogical to contend that you simply "misspoke." This wasn't a minor slip, you took information which -- in its true original context -- does nothing to support canonicity and "misspoke" it into an untrue version of itself which very strongly supports canonicity, AKA the focal point of your argument.

And I am meant to believe that this was a coincidence? If you intended to describe it accurately, it begs the question of why you would have even brought it up in the first place, because a 2021 comic referencing a 2020 lore video doesn't mean the comic is canon, it doesn't contribute at all to canonicity. Yet you managed to bring up this irrelevant point, and accidentally "misspeak" it into a lie that strongly supports canonicity?

Sorry, I wasn't born yesterday. This is even less believable considering this is the second incident of this. You repeatedly claimed that the authors directly confirmed the canonicity of the 2021 comic, but by using an interview from 2019 before the comic existed, and conveniently left out that detail until you were called out on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
30 31 32
Replies
1K
Views
93K
Comiphorous
Comiphorous
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Sticky
Extremely important announcements for our community
Replies
31
Views
5K
Agnaa
Agnaa
Clarification Of Sentence Phrasings And Addition Of Expected Punishments For Each Type Of Rule Breach For All Rules Pages
Replies
19
Views
1K
GarrixianXD
GarrixianXD
AThe1412
Can you restrict a character's Standard Equipment if it gives them a different tier?
Replies
2
Views
414
TheGreatJedi13
TheGreatJedi13
Back
Top