• 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)

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.
 
Antvasima said:
Thank you for helping out. 🙏

Anyway, given that Weekly apologised for spreading a bit of misinformation, I am not sure if a topic ban would be an overreaction.
Click to expand...
Ye, I wasnt purposely spreading misinformation, i just worded what i said weird and it lead to some confusion and im sorry for that, i dont know why Deagon is trying to claim that i was purposely lying
 
WeeklyBattles said:
I just worded what i said weird and it lead to some confusion and im sorry for that, i dont know why Deagon is trying to claim that i was purposely lying
Click to expand...
I explained why very directly and concretely, so do not feign confusion.

As I said, you claim to have accidentally reworded a piece of information which, in its original form, did nothing to help your argument into something which supported your argument very strongly. There was no reason for you to bring up the unaltered information in that thread, so the only reasonable conclusion is that you brought it up in order to obfuscate it in the manner you did.

You managed to do this with not one, not two, but three pieces of information. That's not a coincidence, that's a pattern.

I'm okay if we drop this for now since Jinx's topic ban is being dropped as well, but the idea that I do not have a clear or logical basis to suspect foul play is rather offensive to me, as is playing coy despite me painstakingly explaining it multiple times.
 
I'll reserve my judgement on the majority of the Jinx-Weekly case in this instance, as I do not know enough, however.
DarkDragonMedeus said:
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.
Click to expand...
I apologize in advance DDM and I do not intend for this to be taken in any way as pertaining to this case in particular, but this is an absolutely piss-poor take. Assuming you need foolproof evidence for any accusation is by itself a problematic assessment. It'd be nice if we did indeed have unchallengeable information on any given case before we brought it up for evaluation, certainly. But that is a luxury we are seldom afforded. There would be plenty of problems that would arise if we did not grow suspicious of certain activities, and bring them up to other people for advice. You insinuating that one "cannot" do that is downright ridiculous.

And since you're speaking of mind reading, perhaps you'd like to enlighten on how one is to judge whether another person believes their own arguments or not. Because it seems pretty damn impossible to me in a lot of cases. There is such a thing called an agenda, and there are people who will lie, cheat and befuddle the shit out of anyone they can to get what they want, and that applies to VS statistics as well (again, referring to neither Weekly nor Jinx here). In some cases people can get so attached to ratings, they will gaslight themselves into believing even the very things they're making up. I've seen it happen in real time.

This isn't meant to be a basis for this specific report's evaluation, but I had to speak up against such a bizarre argument.
 
Last edited:
I was more so going off the definition of lying, it's a deliberate attempt to deceive someone or an audience. Of course, there is a difference between growing suspicious of people and considering the possibility of someone being deceptive and outright jumping to conclusions without evidence. Suspicions should preferable be kept privately and talked about in DMs and avoid being public unless there is more condemning evidence beyond a simple disagreement on opinions. Also, patterns can be labeled as bad habits or people being lazy which can be a valid criticism for another area rather than outright being malicious or deceptive. Also, I never said those people don't exist only that innocent until proven guilty is the valid policy rather than the opposite.

There could be other methods such as screenshotting what people say offsite that contradicts what they say onsite. Though bare in mind, there also exist people with multiple personality disorder which if they agree one moment, but disagree another moment can also be due to that rather than being deceptive in one time and truthful in the other. Or deceptive in both cases while their actual opinion remains a mystery. But if people indeed have that condition, perhaps one personality agrees with one while the other personality agrees with the other.

I and not directing this at anyone, but I have from time to time completely misremembered agreeing with the outcome of something despite having a vastly different opinion much later on regarding a different verse that allegedly has the same topic regarding a canonicity policy or standards on "Variable tiers". And some people have verbally attacked me just for being "Inconsistent" or saying something they didn't agree with. Plus, when I do excessive multitasking and/or fighting with a computer that over malfunctions, it's also a common habit to mix certain things up and said something backwards when I meant to say something straight forward. Me and other staff have been wrongfully accused of being those types of "Malicious or dishonest people" in the past when anyone who knows us well can vouch that we're the opposite of that. And thus, I dislike it when I see other people being accused for things that look more like just typical habits rather than them outright trying to be malicious. Not saying some of those people "Could be", only that they aren't objective facts just from simple patterns.
 
I disagree wholeheartedly with Jinx's topic ban being lifted, the fact of the matter is Jinx still stonewalled numerous threads for weeks with aggressive circular arguments without ever posting evidence and outright ignored staff warnings to fix her behavior. This should not be undone just because one staff member finds me annoying.
 
I do notice, Deagon is mostly focused on the RWBY JL crossover example. And as for the Non-Physical Interaction example, there seems to be a staff split hence why Firestorm made it staff only. But a lot of basic powerscaling scenes are things Jinx has been knit picky about basic fight scenes and trying to argue that "Character A physically overpowering and eventually killing Character B" doesn't mean they scale.
 
Deagonx said:
I agree, but that's not at all what happened, so this is moot.
Click to expand...
That is what is happening, yes. You find me annoying, so are using that to claim that Jinx was justified in acting the way she did because she also found me annoying, completely ignoring the fact that she has been acting like this for literal years, has been banned before for acting like this, and has received multiple staff warnings to stop acting like this and ignored said warnings.

Finding a person annoying does not justify stonewalling threads for an entire month.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I was more so going off the definition of lying, it's a deliberate attempt to deceive someone or an audience. Of course, there is a difference between growing suspicious of people and considering the possibility of someone being deceptive and outright jumping to conclusions without evidence. Suspicions should preferable be kept privately and talked about in DMs and avoid being public unless there is more condemning evidence beyond a simple disagreement on opinions. Also, patterns can be labeled as bad habits or people being lazy which can be a valid criticism for another area rather than outright being malicious or deceptive. Also, I never said those people don't exist only that innocent until proven guilty is the valid policy rather than the opposite.

There could be other methods such as screenshotting what people say offsite that contradicts what they say onsite. Though bare in mind, there also exist people with multiple personality disorder which if they agree one moment, but disagree another moment can also be due to that rather than being deceptive in one time and truthful in the other. Or deceptive in both cases while their actual opinion remains a mystery. But if people indeed have that condition, perhaps one personality agrees with one while the other personality agrees with the other.

I and not directing this at anyone, but I have from time to time completely misremembered agreeing with the outcome of something despite having a vastly different opinion much later on regarding a different verse that allegedly has the same topic regarding a canonicity policy or standards on "Variable tiers". And some people have verbally attacked me just for being "Inconsistent" or saying something they didn't agree with. Plus, when I do excessive multitasking and/or fighting with a computer that over malfunctions, it's also a common habit to mix certain things up and said something backwards when I meant to say something straight forward. Me and other staff have been wrongfully accused of being those types of "Malicious or dishonest people" in the past when anyone who knows us well can vouch that we're the opposite of that. And thus, I dislike it when I see other people being accused for things that look more like just typical habits rather than them outright trying to be malicious. Not saying some of those people "Could be", only that they aren't objective facts just from simple patterns.
Click to expand...
Here's the thing.

This further elaboration makes sense and leaves room for variables. Your initial post did not and did not. It was speaking as if in absolute terms, which do not exist, especially in circumstances such as these.
 
WeeklyBattles said:
That is what is happening, yes. You find me annoying, so are using that to claim that Jinx was justified in acting the way she did because she also found me annoying, completely ignoring the fact that she has been acting like this for literal years, has been banned before for acting like this, and has received multiple staff warnings to stop acting like this and ignored said warnings.

Finding a person annoying does not justify stonewalling threads for an entire month.
Click to expand...
I won't speak for Deagon, but I'd say your precedence as a problem user takes the far bigger slice of attention here over any "annoyances" you might present. It's hard for people to take you at 100% face value when you're accusing someone you have obvious enmity with for the same things you tend to be brought up for.
 
WeeklyBattles said:
That is what is happening, yes. You find me annoying, so are using that to claim that Jinx was justified in acting the way she did because she also found me annoying, completely ignoring the fact that she has been acting like this for literal years, has been banned before for acting like this, and has received multiple staff warnings to stop acting like this and ignored said warnings.

Finding a person annoying does not justify stonewalling threads for an entire month.
Click to expand...
I'd like to try and nip this "determining the motives of someone else" debacle in the bud right now, because we could go on and on about trying to find motives and such, and it'd be pretty pointless.

Anyways, I don't know much about this whole situation between Weekly and Jinx, but maybe we should try to address one person at a time instead of discussing both of them at once.
 
Crabwhale said:
I won't speak for Deagon, but I'd say your precedence as a problem user takes the far bigger slice of attention here over any "annoyances" you might present. It's hard for people to take you at 100% face value when you're accusing someone you have obvious enmity with for the same things you tend to be brought up for.
Click to expand...
Crab, Jinx is a large reason for my being viewed in such a way, she is a huge reason why i would get constantly frustrated and have outbursts years ago, i have been trying to tell you guys this for years but no one bothered to listen.
 
WeeklyBattles said:
Crab, Jinx is a large reason for my being viewed in such a way, she is a huge reason why i would get constantly frustrated and have outbursts years ago, i have been trying to tell you guys this for years but no one bothered to listen.
Click to expand...
I know I shouldn't be commenting here but this is too dumb. I and anyone who has been in this wiki long enough knows that you get mad that people disagree with the bs you try to pull on the profiles or any stuff you claim (which most of the time is either baseless or a lie). This isn't about someone making others view you in a bad light, it's about you doing shit you shouldn't that makes people call you and and view you in a bad light.

Also I was there when jinx was calling you out on the rwby stuff and the poor guy even asked if people were seeing the bs you were pulling
 
Let's not allow this to becoming an arena for Weekly to showcase his well-known false victim complex.

It's clear that there was plenty of blame on both sides, and DDM said he was okay with lifting the topic ban. The matter seems very much concluded, IMO.

I will delete any further non staff comments on the matter. If any of the staff want to contest the decision DDM, Ant and I reached, let me know.
 
Going to ask for a warning to be handed out to @Tatsumi504 and @EldemadeDityjon for a lot of undue aggression they've been throwing my way. I don't think a ban is necessary, but they should be reminded to at least try to behave themselves and stop derailing the thread.

-Falsely accusing me of double standards.
-Calling me a hypocrite and accusing me of conspiring with staff to slander them.
-Accusing me of being inherently biased.
-Taking a staff member's quote entirely out of context to pretend they agreed with them.
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
Going to ask for a warning to be handed out to @Tatsumi504 and @EldemadeDityjon for a lot of undue aggression they've been throwing my way. I don't think a ban is necessary, but they should be reminded to at least try to behave themselves and stop derailing the thread.

-Falsely accusing me of double standards.
-Calling me a hypocrite and accusing me of conspiring with staff to slander them.
-Accusing me of being inherently biased.
-Taking a staff member's quote entirely out of context to pretend they agreed with them.
Click to expand...
Falsely accused ? You literally admitted you are showing Double standards when comes to your own verse and MGK. So stop with this crap.




Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
Actually, it seems like Elde is incapable of not insulting me every other post, so maybe a thread ban for him would be warranted.
Click to expand...
Incapable when you clearly made up headcanons which doesn't even exists in the verse again and again. Have you even checked how many times you spammed a character has died without even a single scan indicating character was dead. You should be banned from MGK threads for showing your bias and headcanons not others.
 
EldemadeDityjon said:
Falsely accused ? You literally admitted you are showing Double standards when comes to your own verse and MGK. So stop with this crap.


Click to expand...

That's a meme.
EldemadeDityjon said:
You should be banned from MGK threads for showing your bias
Click to expand...
Literally everyone has bias.
EldemadeDityjon said:
What enough? I am showing part of my end for my claims. Why are you scared for getting exposed.
Click to expand...
"Getting exposed" mf this is a debate forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
11 12 13
Replies
489
Views
33K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Mr. Bambu
Slight Adjustment to Rules Regarding Original Works
Replies
37
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Locked
Regarding the Rule Violations Report Thread
2
Replies
71
Views
6K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
H3110l12345I20
IRL Paper has a profile.
Replies
28
Views
1K
JustANormalLemon
JustANormalLemon
DarkGrath
  • Locked
Proposal for Off-Site Rules Revision
2 3
Replies
93
Views
9K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top