Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Agnaa]

So I'm quite confused about what to do here.

I have no clue who/what "MeiMei445" is; doing a search for that doesn't give me any relevant results. If that's a screen-name for a real life person, that post becomes far worse.

Assuming, for the sake of charitability, that it's referring to a fictional character, I'd say that post is really weird, but mostly in a way that's not directly sexually explicit. To the extent that it is sexually explicit, I think it only just crosses the border of acceptability.

Given Monke's lack of prior warnings in regards to this section of our Site Rules:

Being sexually flirtatious will not be tolerated. Playing mature games, flirting, or using sexual connotations is discouraged, and in extreme cases, will result in a severe penalty.

I think just deletion and a warning should be sufficient.

But, anyone reading this, please do let me know if MeiMei445 is referring to an actual person, in which case I'd advocate for a ban of at least a few weeks.

EDIT: Two people have now clarified this last point, no need to do so further.

 

[Guacamolefletcher]

MeiMei445

Mei Mei is a JJK character who is implied to be similar to EDP445

 

[GarrixianXD]

Seems like forum glitched for me because I didn’t see an image upon clicking the link.

 

[CloverDragon03]

So I'm quite confused about what to do here.

I have no clue who/what "MeiMei445" is; doing a search for that doesn't give me any relevant results. If that's a screen-name for a real life person, that post becomes far worse.

"MeiMei445" is a reference to Mei Mei from Jujutsu Kaisen and EDP445, who is a real life pedophile (and Mei Mei, I believe, is implied to be similar in that regard)

 

[Deagonx]

I'm of the opinion that talking about aging oneself down in order to intentionally attract a pedophile is a really inappropriate joke, and given he's been warned and even banned for inappropriate remarks in the past, I think he should be banned for a few weeks

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Given Monke's lack of prior warnings in regards to this section of our Site Rules:

I think just deletion and a warning should be sufficient.

I can agree with this.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Meh, I'm more in agreement with Deagon. It's a really vile and inappropriate attempt at a joke and I believe MonkeMan's been banned before

 

[Agnaa]

Ah, I forgot that his earlier ban was for sexual content, but in a different context (making sexual comments about other site users).

Given that, and the elaboration on MeiMei445, I'm really torn. I could see anything between just a warning and a 1 month ban as pretty reasonable.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Ah, I forgot that his earlier ban was for sexual content, but in a different context (making sexual comments about other site users).

Given that, and the elaboration on MeiMei445, I'm really torn. I could see anything between just a warning and a 1 month ban as pretty reasonable.

Ah, I didn't know he was banned before for sexual comments. Yeah, I can support a ban then.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I'd go with 2 weeks at minimum (give or take)

 

[DaMonkeMan]

Ah forgot I made that comment. Yeah it was a clear joke but I suppose it was kind of innappropiate in hindsight, so I apologize for that. Won't do it again.

 

[ShivaShakti]

Ah forgot I made that comment. Yeah it was a clear joke but I suppose it was kind of innappropiate in hindsight, so I apologize for that. Won't do it again.

"I forgot I made that comment" it was 10 or 20 minutes ago.

 

[DaMonkeMan]

"I forgot I made that comment" it was 10 or 20 minutes ago.

I have shit memory. Been that way for years.
Though that isn't really the main problem here.

 

[Agnaa]

Well, with a decent amount of staff agreeing with a ban time within the same range, I'm going to apply a 2 week ban.

 

[Jozaysmith?]

So, you allege faked scans in this thread.

No scans were provided either way, so I can't concretely say whether they were faked or not.

You also describe this thread as a "nonsense CRT".

From the statements made in the thread, that user's interpretation seems like a fairly reasonable misunderstanding of things. But since everyone talking about it had bad English, and zero actual scans were posted, it's hard to tell.

You also reported over posting irrelevant comments in this thread.

Apparently the user thought it was about AP due to the title, and their posts were still about things that were mentioned in the OP, like the "suspended world".

While they were ultimately posts about AP in a thread that was actually about speed, given the plausibility of this misunderstanding, how connected it is, and the fact that they stopped posting after people explained it was about speed (and in fact, deleted one of their derailing comments), makes me feel pretty lenient.

So, I don't think the stuff you've shown implies we should take any action.

And, to make this stuff easier for us, please be clearer with your evidence. You linked the same thread twice, and alleged that multiple more threads were created without linking to them.

Thank you, i guess that's fair

 

[Agnaa]

It Depends:tm:.

We're not allowed to have posts in languages other than English outside of message walls.

And personal insults (by people who aren't friends that mutually agree to have such insults thrown around) reach report-worthy levels when they're sufficiently extreme.

EDIT: This post was made in response to a question about whether insults done in languages other than English are reportable, which has now been removed.

 

[Jozaysmith?]

It Depends:tm:.

We're not allowed to have posts in languages other than English outside of message walls.

And personal insults (by people who aren't friends that mutually agree to have such insults thrown around) reach report-worthy levels when they're sufficiently extreme.

EDIT: This post was made in response to a question about whether insults done in languages other than English are reportable, which has now been removed.

Thank you again, i removed it cux i thought no one will bother replying. But you did, thank you.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Few things here:

1. If you wanna report a staff member, take it to HR. That's just how it works
2. I don't really care who was doing what as far as claims for their side and all, it doesn't warrant anyone being hostile in their responses. That's all.

 

[GarrixianXD]

Take this to HR.

 

[TWILIGHT-OP]

Pretty sure you can report calc team members on the RVR thread.

CGM also comes under staff member.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Pretty sure you can report calc team members on the RVR thread.

Nah, all staff members go to HR

 

[LordGinSama]

Will do then.

 

[DarkGrath]

I have been asked to post this ban appeal request on behalf of Transcending and Beyond Transcending.

I should preface that, at this point in time, I have only given the ban appeal a cursory analysis, primarily for the purpose of establishing a prima facie case (i.e.: ensuring the reasons made are worth considering as an appeal), and to check for profane language. At this point in time, I do not support nor reject any action to be taken on this appeal, and I have left the phrasing of the appeal in situ to ensure no information is added or redacted.

Due to Xenforo image limitations, I will be splitting this into two posts. Furthermore, In the interest of not creating an intrusively large post, I have reduced the size of the images provided considerably, and I would strongly recommend anyone attempting to evaluate this appeal to open the images directly to view them properly.

---

Before continuing, remember that we have been banned for over 10 months already, so if you feel like we aren't innocent but should be punished with a ban duration of less than 10 months, I think we can be unbanned.

First, a minor history on what we us. In October of 2022 we were banned for Vote Manipulation. This was a 3 month ban and ended on January of this year. Then on early March of this year, we were permanently banned for primarily intentionally triggering people in arguments by creating dishonest arguments. Some time after we were banned, we appealed. When this happened, Xearsay tried to defend us, but after some discussion, Ant started deleting his new posts in the RVR and tried to finalize our ban completely. Due to this, Xearsay started a private PM with the relevant mods to defend us. He succeeded, and our original reasons of the ban, that is, intentionally triggering people, was debunked. When this happened, Ant created a private PM that included everyone in the original PM where Xearsay changed the reasons except Xearsay himself. This included Deagonx, the person who originally reported us. So here, some evidence was supposedly presented resulting in the ban remaining but the reasons changing to stonewalling along with a previous history of a 3 month ban. Neither us ourselves nor Xearsay was able to defend us, because ultimately, we didn't even know what evidence was used. The evidence was presented privately for whatever reason. When Xearsay pointed the unfairness in this, Deagonx responded by saying his feelings were noted-

Here's proof that our reasons were changed-

This shows two things-

1: Neither us, nor the person who was defending us, Xearsay, was able to see the evidence for our ban.

2: The one time we did recieve proper defense, it was a success and the reasons of our ban were changed.

I am sure you would agree that we should be able to defend ourselves, or at least other people be given a chance to defend us. Our ban was handled entirely without any form of defense being provided to us whatsoever, while the accuser was given all the chance to speak whatever he wanted to. When we were originally banned, we weren't shown the evidence because of a fear that we would harass the people who leaked the screenshots (that led to our original ban) offsite. But this was proven untrue in the same PM discussion with Xearsay that I mentioned before, but even if it wasn't, the evidence for stonewalling would have no relation to them whatsoever. The stonewalling evidence would be something onsite that would be available to everyone, not some offsite private discussion to be leaked, like how it was originally. So there's basically no reason to not show us or Xearsay the evidence. It's not just that we weren't given a chance to address the evidence, but we quite literally couldn't, we had no idea what evidence was used. If possible, I would appreciate it if we could be unbanned exclusively for defending. In this time period, we wouldn't make a post anywhere other than the RVR, and even in the RVR, we would only make posts for defending ourselves. If we do make posts elsewhere, you can ban us and conduct the discussion without us. I can assure you that I wouldn't type anywhere else, and while I am confident Transcending wouldn't either, we should ultimately be treated as separate humans. So if he posts somewhere else, you can ban him but please don't ban me.

With that said, in the PM that was originally created by Xearsay, Deagon did provide one of the evidence used for our ban. As it's unknown what occurred in the PM created by Ant, it's ultimately possible it was the only evidence provided by Deagon. If this is the case, we would like to address it. These three screenshots show what Deagon said against us-

To address it-

And to the point of the unreasonability and stonewalling of the Transcendings, I think the ThatBusyDude incident is a very prudent example of how someone can exploit even the most remote possibility, support it with walls of text, in order to obscure the far more reasonable conclusion. He even used a lot of the same vernacular that they did (like saying 'Hitchens Razor' about DDM not being able to 'prove' that the email list had no mistakes.)

What ThatBusyDude did and what we did are fundamentally different. Let's take a look at an example of me using Hitchen's Razor-

So in DC, there's a structure called the Source Wall and a character named Lucifer Morningstar flew beyond it. Transcending was arguing The Source Wall exists in all dimensional levels of the DC Multiverse (and so that Lucifer only flew beyond a lower level of it), while Deagon was arguing The Source Wall only exists at the end of the Multiverse. When Transcending showed evidence of the Source Wall existing in all dimensional levels of the Multiverse, Deagon tried to argue this version of the Source Wall is incompatible with the Lucifer storyline. I was essentially requesting evidence to support the claim that it is incompatible with the Lucifer storyline. If we are unable to ask for evidence in such cases, it allows anyone to dismiss evidence presented against their argument by simply stating that it is "incompatible" with the storyline, without providing any evidence to support this claim of incompatibility. There are of course, times where asking for proof is dumb, as with the analogy Deagon provided, but it's a false analogy, as there are cases where using Hitchen's Razor is a valid move as well, and our case was, in our opinion at least, part of those times.

Moreover, Deagon is contradicting himself. In the three screenshots, Deagon is saying we asked him to prove something that cannot logically be proven and is "common sense", but when I used Hitchen's Razor against him, he said he could have proved it but didn't find it something worth putting his effort into-

So by his own admission, his analogy cannot work. He could have proved, but he didn't want to spend time proving, so he chose not to. That's the end of it.

You may confirm it for yourself here- https://vsbattles.com/threads/lucifer-dream-and-michael-downgrade.143657/post-5172837

A scan was produced describing the Living Tribunal as being in a "16-dimensional domain" and the obvious conclusion is that it's 16-dimensional. B_T argued with myself and four other users for over a page that we couldn't prove it was 16-D because "what if they were non-spatial dimensions?" Of course, the basic syntax of "n-dimensional domain" -- absent of any obfuscating context -- must refer to spatial dimensions, it doesn't make any sense otherwise to say it that way, rather than "a domain containing sixteen dimensions" which is more ambiguous."

Firstly, I will reiterate that me and Transcending are completely different humans beings living in entirely different continents. My violations shouldn't be applied to him and vice versa. With that said, I did indeed make a bad argument (an argument that he didn't agree with, which is why he never tried to argue for me when I made it. He pointed this out in the thread itself-)

but making bad arguments and stonewalling are entirely different things. I have since went on to change my mind and now disagree with the argument I made back then.

I made approximately ten posts, none of which were any major essays but small ones with one to three sentences. When I was debunked, I dropped the topic. You may confirm it for yourself, here- https://vsbattles.com/threads/marvel-cosmology-downgrade.146443/post-5428547

It would have been stonewalling if I tried to push the argument for pages. It shouldn't be considered stonewalling if I only pushed it for a few posts and later stopped arguing.

For the sake of brevity, I won't go on listing the numerous examples of these kinds of arguments that I've been force to have with the Transcendings, and Xearsay for that matter, where basic common sense is sacrificed because a certain conclusion is inconvenient to what they wanted to argue for, where I have to answer questions very similar to "How can you prove Xenforo made no mistakes, or that they weren't friends sharing an e-mail innocently?" about comic books, only to be met with these like "thats argument from pigheadedness" or "hitchens razor."

So Deagon basically listed a single example of me making a bad argument, falsely stating I was stonewalling, then generalized this to many posts by Transcending, Xearsay, and me myself. I am sure you can see the problem with this.

As for the perma-ban, its more of a footnote. i.e. how much good will are we really inclined to grant rule-breaking users who -- even independent of their rulebreaking -- simply weren't productive or good-faith contributors to the wiki?

Saying we weren't productive is false. I will list some of the things Transcending achieved from being on the wiki-
1: Had PC Bane downgraded
2: Added a few abilities to characters like Batman
3: Gave Superman Void Manipulation and got a CRT accepted to split him into keys. I never managed to finish applying the split though, I was banned before I could
4: Got Post-Flashpoint street levellers upgraded to 8-C from 9-B
5: Got a good amount of DC cosmic characters upgraded to 1-A from Low 1-C
6: Got a few abilities like High Godly Existence Erasure and Healing added to them
7: Removed Superboy Prime's Death Metal key
8: The thread where points 5, 6, and 7 occurred ended up removing Plot Manipulation from Mandrakk. This caused a chain reaction where people changed the standards of Plot Manipulation to get Mandrakk Plot Manip back
8: Had Trigon downgraded
9: Upgraded Batman, Lex Luthor, and Batman Who Laughs' intelligence
10: Indirectly caused Parallax's downgrade
Etc. I assisted him in doing many of these contributions.

Another important point is that the discussion for our ban basically considered both of us as the same people. While we do have some similar opinions, we have some dissimilar ones as well, and we live in entirely different continents. So violations done by one of us should only be applied to that person, and shouldn't be applied to the other. So if I stonewalled somewhere, Transcending shouldn't be punished.

It should also be noted that we were never topic banned or even warned for the supposed stonewalling. Ant did say we stonewalled but this was never taken to the RVR and officially proven. In fact, this matter was never taken to the RVR. As for a warning, we haven't actually received any for any reason (well, once when Transcendihim said Deagon committed the "Argument from Pigheadedness" fallacy, DDM asked me to not do so but he never said that was a formal warning). So the permaban was pretty much instantaneous, no warning or topic ban, jumping straight to not just a full on ban but a permanent one. As for our previous offense of Vote Manipulation, that was decisively not done after the 3 month ban as you can see in the one CRT ITranscending created after getting unbanned- https://vsbattles.com/threads/trigon-downgrade-and-nabu-and-the-batman-who-laughs-upgrade.148717/

All people who agreed with him, have other verifiable identities proving we did not manipulate the voting. And further, him and some other guys like LuciferX and AndrewBennet diasgreed with each other on some other topics in the wiki itself. Some other guys like Vasco only agreed with him on specific parts of the CRT while agreeing with Deagon on others. So we clearly don't manipulate votes as of now.

Now let's move on to the stonewalling itself. As I have explained before, we may not know of the full evidence used against us but we do have evidence supporting us not stonewalling. To start with, in the Trigon thread I linked previously, after arguing with Deagon for a portion of a page, Transcending said this-

I will say this one last time, if you are gonna repeat your points again, I am not gonna bother responding to you.

After that, he stopped trying to argue for that point with Deagon until Ant came, at which point he tried to talk with Ant. He showed behavior that's the exact opposite of stonewalling. He tried to reduce stonewalling and cluttering.

Later in the thread, he said this-

Anyway, I am not gonna help you in stonewalling this thread any longer, if you want to address this post, feel free to, a mod is fine with scaling Batman to BWL. I will continue the discussion with him.

He again stopped arguing with Deagon and explicitly mentioned this was so stonewalling wouldn't occur in the thread. He then tried to continue the discussion with Firestorm. As before, he tried to prevent the thread from getting clogged.

Here's another example- https://vsbattles.com/threads/dc-comics-the-legendary-dc-heralds-upgrade.147343/page-7#post-5457381

Transcending and Deagon had a short argument here and Ant soon (soon enough to not count as stonewalling, in our perspective) after said we were stonewalling. Here, you can see that we stopped the discussion and let Deagon have the last word in. So again, no stonewalling. If we wanted to stonewall, we would have kept on arguing with Deagon for pages rather than just a few posts.

I think I can provide more but for now I think this too should be enough- https://vsbattles.com/threads/dc-comics-lucifer-abilities.148297/post-5521224

We had another short argument, and once people disagreed with us, we dropped the topic rather than continuing to argue with Deagon. If we wanted to stonewall, the people disagreeing with us wouldn't be of any relevance to us and we would have continued pushing our opinion.

I think that should show we don't stonewall. If we could see the full evidence for us stonewalling, assuming more was provided in the PM created by Ant, we shall address them as well.

Now I want to show we shouldn't have been perma'd with precedents. I will start with this post right here-

This post is important because it establishes that if you have a prior history of a 3 month ban, and you do something comparable to what got you this original ban or even worse (that is, something that would have originally given you at least a 3 month ban), you would get a ban of at least 6 months.

Now, is stonewalling worse than or even comparable to vote manipulation? In our opinion, no, and neither is Qawsed's, who says it's only deserving of a warning

Hell, even then Qawsed said "maybe a warning" which means the necessity of a warning itself was not 100%. So something that would normally get you a ban of 3 months coupled with a previous history of a 3 month ban equals 6 months, but something that normally, at best gives you a warning, combined with a previous history of a 3 month ban equals perma? The math doesn't check out.

This is significant too-

Deagon said there are categories of offenses, and that a prior offense from one category should not result in a harsher punishment for a future violation from a different category. Ant agreed with this.

With this in mind, our supposed stonewalling should not get an increased punishment due to vote manip, as both are from completely different categories. The stonewalling part, even if correct, should only be penalized as a first offense. Link- https://vsbattles.com/threads/rule-violation-reports-new-forum.107529/post-6046902

Let's move onto some double standards now. I am sure you can think of some of your own but for the purposes of this appeal, I will provide two.

1: https://vsbattles.com/threads/rule-violation-reports-new-forum.107529/post-5946415

Those are the offenses by cloudyagami. In total, he got two warnings, a one month ban, a two week ban, a three month ban, and finally a perma but only because he sock puppeted. Along with that, he got numerous other editing related warnings. Is what we did in any form or shape worse than what cloud did? We only got a 3 month ban along with something maybe deserving of a warning. His ban duration before getting perma'd for sock puppeting equals 4.5 months, along with many warnings. So his case was handled much much more leniently.

2: https://vsbattles.com/threads/rule-violation-reports-new-forum.107529/post-5950611

These are the offenses by WeeklyBattles. He got a one year ban, numerous warnings, and the new thing he was reported of was worthy of at least a few weeks ban https://vsbattles.com/threads/rule-violation-reports-new-forum.107529/post-5950435 I will also note that one of the things he got a warning for was vote manipulation that went in a similar way to us, except he got a warning while we got a 3 month ban. Regardless, one year ban+many warnings+a few weeks ban=2 years, while for us, a 3 month ban+something that at best deserves a warning=perma.

The math doesn't check out. To clarify, we aren't saying Weekly should get any longer ban or anything, only that we should get a shorter one, if necessary.

(Cont.)

 

[DarkGrath]

That covers our main points, but Deagon, Ant, and DDM don't like us. It's not hard to see they don't like us when going through our history (especially in the case of Ant and Deagon), but in DDM's case, I can show some things that would bring his credibility in this matter into question.

1: He was the same person who said this-

2: Before we continue, you can check these screenshots for the original reasons for our ban-

The important part is the part about us harassing people offsite. We made a single post "harassing people" offsite. Here

Medeus said this comment was too minor and old for Deagon to be punished

The issue is that Deagon didn't make the comment, I did. And DDM was trying to make us look like terrible humans by saying we publicize private things said by people to harass them. This is the ONLY instance of us making a private thing public, and it was ONLY because it was about "mask" attacking us. We didn't post any random screenshot, we only posted ONE screenshot of ONE person attacking us, and this was only done by us once. Furthermore, we didn't post it at random. We asked mask to not attack us privately numerous times, and only did it when he consistently did so, but I digress. The main point here is that when DDM thought we did it, tried to make us look like viscious people and tried to ban us with it, but when he thought Deagon did it, he said it was minor and unworthy of anything.

3:

DDM thought Amin/Mask were the same as Deagon, which shows how he lacks a genuine understanding of the subject. Just something extra to raise doubts about his credibility. Furthermore, he also mentions that the "haters" comment shouldn't merit any punishment. This not only reinforces the previous second point I raised about his credibility but also emphasizes that my post should not serve as a basis for advocating our ban.

4: Keep the original reasons for our ban (provided in last point) in mind. I bring this up to establish a few things-

a)

But what is worse is that they have self admitted on a wide variety of places that it is their full intention that they do so deliberately just to get people "Triggered"; particularly Antvasima and Deagonx.

We didn't self-admit it on a wide variety place. The only evidence used was something T said (not me) in a single group chat in Discord. That's a single place. We don't intentionally trigger people but the only piece of evidence that was used to "prove" this came from a single place, not a wide variety of them

b)

Based on some common understandings and behavior, they are apparently affiliated with various Anti-VSBW groups who wish to possibility destabilize the wiki or at the very least our DC Comics cosmology and scaling to be full of loopholes and exaggerated statistics ratings.

This is also incorrect. We are not affiliated with any Anti-VSBW groups, and to the contrary, we always promoted, supported, and defended VSBW whenever we could, even when others attacked it. We have been trying to make VSBW look better offsite for months and in Quora alone, a significant amount of people became better versed in VSBW's tiering system and chose it over other systems like CSAP due to us. Further, DDM provided no evidence for this claim.

c)

I unfortunately cannot share any public evidence of this claim, because another one of their wrong doings is that they have friends on various discord groups and are willing to commit to harassment against anyone who tries to expose their malicious intentions and art of deception and post them on places like quora

As explained before, we only made a SINGLE screenshot of a SINGLE person public and that too ONLY when he ignored our previous requests of not wanting to be attacked privately. And we didn't do this in multiple places as DDM is suggesting with "places like quora", we ONLY did this on Quora.

To be clear, we aren't saying DDM isn't reliable in any and all RVR cases. We are only saying he's not reliable in cases involving our ban. But that's about it.

---

That is the full extent of what they provided in the appeal. I would hope this goes without saying, but please be civil about this matter. I believe I have the discretion to denote that this matter should be handled transparently, but I will be willing to take action against public discussion on this appeal and to handle it privately with HR if we cannot be reasonable.

 

[Deagonx]

I am concretely opposed to them returning to the wiki, given their history. At one point in time they were overtly recruiting their friends off sites to have them give FRAs to their CRTs and then attempted to have me banned for uncovering it. They also had me banned from the discord server the evidence was in once I reported it.

Moreover, they've had a long history of stonewalling important DC discussions and being altogether unreasonable, in addition to harassing users off site including myself due to the ban, and making statements suggesting they deliberately target and act inflammatory towards users with mental health issues in order to make them lose their cool and seem more unreasonable in order to "win" debates.

-------

In the past, whenever these users have been confronted with even extremely blatant rulebreaking and bad behavior they have arduously deflected, denied, counter-accused, and shown no indications that they sincerely regret any of their actions. I have no doubt that given the chance to respond to what I just said it would be met with the same. Even throughout the vote manipulation fiasco, none of the users involved ever once admitted to what they were doing after several pages of arguing here in the RVR and the posting of evidence that Bambu described as "the clearest evidence of vote manipulation I have ever seen" and Mori described as "shockingly straightforward."

These users are, by my final assessment, a profoundly negative impact on the forum and as one of the Moderators predominantly responsible for handling DC cosmology matters I am certainly uneager to see them return given their malicious intent and inability to recognize their faults.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Alright, I'm not one to report people right off the bat to give them a chance but I'll be reporting @Hellformer for thier behavior in the thread linked below. Just read though the second on page at their responses towards to Thelastmlg and myself.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/immeasurable-speed-alien-x-and-paradox.163633/ (second page only)

On the second page of the thread The user continues to act rude to me and Thelastmlg who address the issues with his arguments, mentioning our "lack of comprehension" or commenting back "Invincible Ignorance" as if we were not properly giving examples and just being ignorant. I've already asked them twice but they continue to do so and despite that they had continued, once again claiming my argument to disagree falls under argument from incredulity which means they think I disagree solely because I don't believe it and thus it can't be true which means ignorance (that was there last post before mine in which i closed the thread) which isn't the case if they read my arguments they'd had seen.

I suggest another warning. I don't think a ban is needed, what do others think?

 

[Deagonx]

I suggest another warning. I don't think a ban is needed, what do others think?

Reading through the thread, he comes off very poorly. Accusing all of his detractors of ignorance, adding "lmao" to the end of every other sentence, constantly invoking the names of fallacies/razors instead of proper discussion. I agree a warning is justified here, and given that he is very very new (three day old account) I would recommend a relatively short leash moving forward. If he continues to demonstrate that he's not willing to have a polite discussion we would need to take more severe action.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

@Hellformer

Alright, I'm not one to report people right off the bat to give them a chance but I'll be reporting Hellformer for thier behavior in the thread linked below. Just read though the second on page at their responses towards to Thelastmlg and myself.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/immeasurable-speed-alien-x-and-paradox.163633/ (second page only)

On the second page of the thread The user continues to act rude to me and Thelastmlg who address the issues with his arguments, mentioning our "lack of comprehension" or commenting back "Invincible Ignorance" as if we were not properly giving examples and just being ignorant. I've already asked them twice but they continue to do so and despite that they had continued, once again claiming my argument to disagree falls under argument from incredulity which means they think I disagree solely because I don't believe and which means ignorance (that was there last post before mine in which i closed the thread) which isn't the case if they read my arguments they'd had seen

I suggest another warning. I don't think a ban is needed, what do others think?

we need to make it a habit to tag the user being reported, we sometimes forget

I definitely agree with a warning, btw

 

[LordGriffin1000]

@Hellformer

we need to make it a habit to tag the user being reported, we sometimes forget

I definitely agree with a warning, btw

My bad

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Alright, I'm not one to report people right off the bat to give them a chance but I'll be reporting @Hellformer for thier behavior in the thread linked below. Just read though the second on page at their responses towards to Thelastmlg and myself.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/immeasurable-speed-alien-x-and-paradox.163633/ (second page only)

On the second page of the thread The user continues to act rude to me and Thelastmlg who address the issues with his arguments, mentioning our "lack of comprehension" or commenting back "Invincible Ignorance" as if we were not properly giving examples and just being ignorant. I've already asked them twice but they continue to do so and despite that they had continued, once again claiming my argument to disagree falls under argument from incredulity which means they think I disagree solely because I don't believe and which means ignorance (that was there last post before mine in which i closed the thread) which isn't the case if they read my arguments they'd had seen

I suggest another warning. I don't think a ban is needed, what do others think?

Agreed with a warning.

I have been asked to post this ban appeal request on behalf of Transcending and Beyond Transcending.

I should preface that, at this point in time, I have only given the ban appeal a cursory analysis, primarily for the purpose of establishing a prima facie case (i.e.: ensuring the reasons made are worth considering as an appeal), and to check for profane language. At this point in time, I do not support nor reject any action to be taken on this appeal, and I have left the phrasing of the appeal in situ to ensure no information is added or redacted.

Due to Xenforo image limitations, I will be splitting this into two posts. Furthermore, In the interest of not creating an intrusively large post, I have reduced the size of the images provided considerably, and I would strongly recommend anyone attempting to evaluate this appeal to open the images directly to view them properly.

---

Before continuing, remember that we have been banned for over 10 months already, so if you feel like we aren't innocent but should be punished with a ban duration of less than 10 months, I think we can be unbanned.

First, a minor history on what we us. In October of 2022 we were banned for Vote Manipulation. This was a 3 month ban and ended on January of this year. Then on early March of this year, we were permanently banned for primarily intentionally triggering people in arguments by creating dishonest arguments. Some time after we were banned, we appealed. When this happened, Xearsay tried to defend us, but after some discussion, Ant started deleting his new posts in the RVR and tried to finalize our ban completely. Due to this, Xearsay started a private PM with the relevant mods to defend us. He succeeded, and our original reasons of the ban, that is, intentionally triggering people, was debunked. When this happened, Ant created a private PM that included everyone in the original PM where Xearsay changed the reasons except Xearsay himself. This included Deagonx, the person who originally reported us. So here, some evidence was supposedly presented resulting in the ban remaining but the reasons changing to stonewalling along with a previous history of a 3 month ban. Neither us ourselves nor Xearsay was able to defend us, because ultimately, we didn't even know what evidence was used. The evidence was presented privately for whatever reason. When Xearsay pointed the unfairness in this, Deagonx responded by saying his feelings were noted-



Here's proof that our reasons were changed-




This shows two things-

1: Neither us, nor the person who was defending us, Xearsay, was able to see the evidence for our ban.

2: The one time we did recieve proper defense, it was a success and the reasons of our ban were changed.

I am sure you would agree that we should be able to defend ourselves, or at least other people be given a chance to defend us. Our ban was handled entirely without any form of defense being provided to us whatsoever, while the accuser was given all the chance to speak whatever he wanted to. When we were originally banned, we weren't shown the evidence because of a fear that we would harass the people who leaked the screenshots (that led to our original ban) offsite. But this was proven untrue in the same PM discussion with Xearsay that I mentioned before, but even if it wasn't, the evidence for stonewalling would have no relation to them whatsoever. The stonewalling evidence would be something onsite that would be available to everyone, not some offsite private discussion to be leaked, like how it was originally. So there's basically no reason to not show us or Xearsay the evidence. It's not just that we weren't given a chance to address the evidence, but we quite literally couldn't, we had no idea what evidence was used. If possible, I would appreciate it if we could be unbanned exclusively for defending. In this time period, we wouldn't make a post anywhere other than the RVR, and even in the RVR, we would only make posts for defending ourselves. If we do make posts elsewhere, you can ban us and conduct the discussion without us. I can assure you that I wouldn't type anywhere else, and while I am confident Transcending wouldn't either, we should ultimately be treated as separate humans. So if he posts somewhere else, you can ban him but please don't ban me.

With that said, in the PM that was originally created by Xearsay, Deagon did provide one of the evidence used for our ban. As it's unknown what occurred in the PM created by Ant, it's ultimately possible it was the only evidence provided by Deagon. If this is the case, we would like to address it. These three screenshots show what Deagon said against us-





To address it-

What ThatBusyDude did and what we did are fundamentally different. Let's take a look at an example of me using Hitchen's Razor-




So in DC, there's a structure called the Source Wall and a character named Lucifer Morningstar flew beyond it. Transcending was arguing The Source Wall exists in all dimensional levels of the DC Multiverse (and so that Lucifer only flew beyond a lower level of it), while Deagon was arguing The Source Wall only exists at the end of the Multiverse. When Transcending showed evidence of the Source Wall existing in all dimensional levels of the Multiverse, Deagon tried to argue this version of the Source Wall is incompatible with the Lucifer storyline. I was essentially requesting evidence to support the claim that it is incompatible with the Lucifer storyline. If we are unable to ask for evidence in such cases, it allows anyone to dismiss evidence presented against their argument by simply stating that it is "incompatible" with the storyline, without providing any evidence to support this claim of incompatibility. There are of course, times where asking for proof is dumb, as with the analogy Deagon provided, but it's a false analogy, as there are cases where using Hitchen's Razor is a valid move as well, and our case was, in our opinion at least, part of those times.

Moreover, Deagon is contradicting himself. In the three screenshots, Deagon is saying we asked him to prove something that cannot logically be proven and is "common sense", but when I used Hitchen's Razor against him, he said he could have proved it but didn't find it something worth putting his effort into-



So by his own admission, his analogy cannot work. He could have proved, but he didn't want to spend time proving, so he chose not to. That's the end of it.

You may confirm it for yourself here- https://vsbattles.com/threads/lucifer-dream-and-michael-downgrade.143657/post-5172837


Firstly, I will reiterate that me and Transcending are completely different humans beings living in entirely different continents. My violations shouldn't be applied to him and vice versa. With that said, I did indeed make a bad argument (an argument that he didn't agree with, which is why he never tried to argue for me when I made it. He pointed this out in the thread itself-)



but making bad arguments and stonewalling are entirely different things. I have since went on to change my mind and now disagree with the argument I made back then.

I made approximately ten posts, none of which were any major essays but small ones with one to three sentences. When I was debunked, I dropped the topic. You may confirm it for yourself, here- https://vsbattles.com/threads/marvel-cosmology-downgrade.146443/post-5428547

It would have been stonewalling if I tried to push the argument for pages. It shouldn't be considered stonewalling if I only pushed it for a few posts and later stopped arguing.


So Deagon basically listed a single example of me making a bad argument, falsely stating I was stonewalling, then generalized this to many posts by Transcending, Xearsay, and me myself. I am sure you can see the problem with this.


Saying we weren't productive is false. I will list some of the things Transcending achieved from being on the wiki-
1: Had PC Bane downgraded
2: Added a few abilities to characters like Batman
3: Gave Superman Void Manipulation and got a CRT accepted to split him into keys. I never managed to finish applying the split though, I was banned before I could
4: Got Post-Flashpoint street levellers upgraded to 8-C from 9-B
5: Got a good amount of DC cosmic characters upgraded to 1-A from Low 1-C
6: Got a few abilities like High Godly Existence Erasure and Healing added to them
7: Removed Superboy Prime's Death Metal key
8: The thread where points 5, 6, and 7 occurred ended up removing Plot Manipulation from Mandrakk. This caused a chain reaction where people changed the standards of Plot Manipulation to get Mandrakk Plot Manip back
8: Had Trigon downgraded
9: Upgraded Batman, Lex Luthor, and Batman Who Laughs' intelligence
10: Indirectly caused Parallax's downgrade
Etc. I assisted him in doing many of these contributions.

Another important point is that the discussion for our ban basically considered both of us as the same people. While we do have some similar opinions, we have some dissimilar ones as well, and we live in entirely different continents. So violations done by one of us should only be applied to that person, and shouldn't be applied to the other. So if I stonewalled somewhere, Transcending shouldn't be punished.

It should also be noted that we were never topic banned or even warned for the supposed stonewalling. Ant did say we stonewalled but this was never taken to the RVR and officially proven. In fact, this matter was never taken to the RVR. As for a warning, we haven't actually received any for any reason (well, once when Transcendihim said Deagon committed the "Argument from Pigheadedness" fallacy, DDM asked me to not do so but he never said that was a formal warning). So the permaban was pretty much instantaneous, no warning or topic ban, jumping straight to not just a full on ban but a permanent one. As for our previous offense of Vote Manipulation, that was decisively not done after the 3 month ban as you can see in the one CRT ITranscending created after getting unbanned- https://vsbattles.com/threads/trigon-downgrade-and-nabu-and-the-batman-who-laughs-upgrade.148717/

All people who agreed with him, have other verifiable identities proving we did not manipulate the voting. And further, him and some other guys like LuciferX and AndrewBennet diasgreed with each other on some other topics in the wiki itself. Some other guys like Vasco only agreed with him on specific parts of the CRT while agreeing with Deagon on others. So we clearly don't manipulate votes as of now.

Now let's move on to the stonewalling itself. As I have explained before, we may not know of the full evidence used against us but we do have evidence supporting us not stonewalling. To start with, in the Trigon thread I linked previously, after arguing with Deagon for a portion of a page, Transcending said this-


After that, he stopped trying to argue for that point with Deagon until Ant came, at which point he tried to talk with Ant. He showed behavior that's the exact opposite of stonewalling. He tried to reduce stonewalling and cluttering.

Later in the thread, he said this-

He again stopped arguing with Deagon and explicitly mentioned this was so stonewalling wouldn't occur in the thread. He then tried to continue the discussion with Firestorm. As before, he tried to prevent the thread from getting clogged.

Here's another example- https://vsbattles.com/threads/dc-comics-the-legendary-dc-heralds-upgrade.147343/page-7#post-5457381

Transcending and Deagon had a short argument here and Ant soon (soon enough to not count as stonewalling, in our perspective) after said we were stonewalling. Here, you can see that we stopped the discussion and let Deagon have the last word in. So again, no stonewalling. If we wanted to stonewall, we would have kept on arguing with Deagon for pages rather than just a few posts.

I think I can provide more but for now I think this too should be enough- https://vsbattles.com/threads/dc-comics-lucifer-abilities.148297/post-5521224

We had another short argument, and once people disagreed with us, we dropped the topic rather than continuing to argue with Deagon. If we wanted to stonewall, the people disagreeing with us wouldn't be of any relevance to us and we would have continued pushing our opinion.

I think that should show we don't stonewall. If we could see the full evidence for us stonewalling, assuming more was provided in the PM created by Ant, we shall address them as well.

Now I want to show we shouldn't have been perma'd with precedents. I will start with this post right here-



This post is important because it establishes that if you have a prior history of a 3 month ban, and you do something comparable to what got you this original ban or even worse (that is, something that would have originally given you at least a 3 month ban), you would get a ban of at least 6 months.

Now, is stonewalling worse than or even comparable to vote manipulation? In our opinion, no, and neither is Qawsed's, who says it's only deserving of a warning



Hell, even then Qawsed said "maybe a warning" which means the necessity of a warning itself was not 100%. So something that would normally get you a ban of 3 months coupled with a previous history of a 3 month ban equals 6 months, but something that normally, at best gives you a warning, combined with a previous history of a 3 month ban equals perma? The math doesn't check out.

This is significant too-



Deagon said there are categories of offenses, and that a prior offense from one category should not result in a harsher punishment for a future violation from a different category. Ant agreed with this.

With this in mind, our supposed stonewalling should not get an increased punishment due to vote manip, as both are from completely different categories. The stonewalling part, even if correct, should only be penalized as a first offense. Link- https://vsbattles.com/threads/rule-violation-reports-new-forum.107529/post-6046902

Let's move onto some double standards now. I am sure you can think of some of your own but for the purposes of this appeal, I will provide two.

1: https://vsbattles.com/threads/rule-violation-reports-new-forum.107529/post-5946415

Those are the offenses by cloudyagami. In total, he got two warnings, a one month ban, a two week ban, a three month ban, and finally a perma but only because he sock puppeted. Along with that, he got numerous other editing related warnings. Is what we did in any form or shape worse than what cloud did? We only got a 3 month ban along with something maybe deserving of a warning. His ban duration before getting perma'd for sock puppeting equals 4.5 months, along with many warnings. So his case was handled much much more leniently.

2: https://vsbattles.com/threads/rule-violation-reports-new-forum.107529/post-5950611

These are the offenses by WeeklyBattles. He got a one year ban, numerous warnings, and the new thing he was reported of was worthy of at least a few weeks ban https://vsbattles.com/threads/rule-violation-reports-new-forum.107529/post-5950435 I will also note that one of the things he got a warning for was vote manipulation that went in a similar way to us, except he got a warning while we got a 3 month ban. Regardless, one year ban+many warnings+a few weeks ban=2 years, while for us, a 3 month ban+something that at best deserves a warning=perma.

The math doesn't check out. To clarify, we aren't saying Weekly should get any longer ban or anything, only that we should get a shorter one, if necessary.

(Cont.)

That covers our main points, but Deagon, Ant, and DDM don't like us. It's not hard to see they don't like us when going through our history (especially in the case of Ant and Deagon), but in DDM's case, I can show some things that would bring his credibility in this matter into question.

1: He was the same person who said this-



2: Before we continue, you can check these screenshots for the original reasons for our ban-




The important part is the part about us harassing people offsite. We made a single post "harassing people" offsite. Here



Medeus said this comment was too minor and old for Deagon to be punished



The issue is that Deagon didn't make the comment, I did. And DDM was trying to make us look like terrible humans by saying we publicize private things said by people to harass them. This is the ONLY instance of us making a private thing public, and it was ONLY because it was about "mask" attacking us. We didn't post any random screenshot, we only posted ONE screenshot of ONE person attacking us, and this was only done by us once. Furthermore, we didn't post it at random. We asked mask to not attack us privately numerous times, and only did it when he consistently did so, but I digress. The main point here is that when DDM thought we did it, tried to make us look like viscious people and tried to ban us with it, but when he thought Deagon did it, he said it was minor and unworthy of anything.

3:



DDM thought Amin/Mask were the same as Deagon, which shows how he lacks a genuine understanding of the subject. Just something extra to raise doubts about his credibility. Furthermore, he also mentions that the "haters" comment shouldn't merit any punishment. This not only reinforces the previous second point I raised about his credibility but also emphasizes that my post should not serve as a basis for advocating our ban.



4: Keep the original reasons for our ban (provided in last point) in mind. I bring this up to establish a few things-

a)

We didn't self-admit it on a wide variety place. The only evidence used was something T said (not me) in a single group chat in Discord. That's a single place. We don't intentionally trigger people but the only piece of evidence that was used to "prove" this came from a single place, not a wide variety of them

b)

This is also incorrect. We are not affiliated with any Anti-VSBW groups, and to the contrary, we always promoted, supported, and defended VSBW whenever we could, even when others attacked it. We have been trying to make VSBW look better offsite for months and in Quora alone, a significant amount of people became better versed in VSBW's tiering system and chose it over other systems like CSAP due to us. Further, DDM provided no evidence for this claim.

c)

As explained before, we only made a SINGLE screenshot of a SINGLE person public and that too ONLY when he ignored our previous requests of not wanting to be attacked privately. And we didn't do this in multiple places as DDM is suggesting with "places like quora", we ONLY did this on Quora.

To be clear, we aren't saying DDM isn't reliable in any and all RVR cases. We are only saying he's not reliable in cases involving our ban. But that's about it.

---

That is the full extent of what they provided in the appeal. I would hope this goes without saying, but please be civil about this matter. I believe I have the discretion to denote that this matter should be handled transparently, but I will be willing to take action against public discussion on this appeal and to handle it privately with HR if we cannot be reasonable.

I do not memorize everything discussed by what was going on; and I noticed one of the screenshots from something I mentioned in DMs. Some of the text while not bad enough to advocate for anything, also included some things I prefer not to have shared publicly without permission.

But I still more or less agree with DeagonX. And it's mostly Antvasima and Deagon who have strong opinions about the topic; but in addition to the offsite stuff. All three of them have a history of bombarding on staff only threads without permission to post. And Xearsay has still fairly recently posted on DC threads saying things like "None of the staff no anything about DC" on a thread that was staff only and I doubt he had permission to post things like that. And posting on staff only threads without permission is still problematic to say the least. Also, me not knowing "Mask wasn't Deagon" was news to me. But some other points in his defense still stand.

 

[Deagonx]

I agree with DDM. I'll also note two brief things:

Neither us ourselves nor Xearsay was able to defend us, because ultimately, we didn't even know what evidence was used. The evidence was presented privately for whatever reason. When Xearsay pointed the unfairness in this, Deagonx responded by saying his feelings were noted-

That is inaccurate. What I was responding to was the notion that I should not be able to participate in the discussion because it was their belief that I was the "accuser."

In truth I was not the accuser, I was relaying a report made by another user. Initially it was kept private as that user had requested that their identity not be made known because they were concerned that Transcending and B_T would harass him for it. Eventually they discovered his identity themselves on account of having "spies" in Discord servers that they were banned from. The sentiment was expressed to me by a few users that people were afraid to speak negatively about those two even in private servers they were not in, because they essentially had a handful of "snitches" who would relay anything that was said about them, which would result in the people saying it being harassed publicly, usually on Quora posts.

--------------------

The other thing that I will note is that these users already attempted to appeal this ban, after which it was ultimately affirmed that they would remain banned. This was not a decision made casually, the discussion went on for several pages and those users and their friend argued extensively as they have above that they should be unbanned.

Upon reading the new appeal, it is largely the same argument as the original appeal, but with the added touch that they are questioning Antvasima's and DDM's integrity in the matter, as well as my own, which I believe is uncalled for. I was, and am, of the sincere belief that they are a toxic presence and behaved extremely poorly in a variety of ways, and their propensity to try and deflect the consequences of their behavior with lengthy walls of text accusing others of wrongdoing or misrepresenting situations as they did in the segment I quoted above, is not persuasive to me.

 

[Theglassman12]

@DarkDragonMedeus I wouldn’t consider commenting on staff only threads without permission to be something to justify a permaban, that sounds like a warning at best, and even if it was a ban it wouldn’t remotely be that long given how minor it is.

As for the whole appeal, I think they should be given a second chance here for an unban, though as usual, I’d recommend just keeping an eye on them for a bit in case they cause any unreasonable commotions.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

@DarkDragonMedeus I wouldn’t consider commenting on staff only threads without permission to be something to justify a permaban, that sounds like a warning at best, and even if it was a ban it wouldn’t remotely be that long given how minor it is.

As for the whole appeal, I think they should be given a second chance here for an unban, though as usual, I’d recommend just keeping an eye on them for a bit in case they cause any unreasonable commotions.

That's not the only thing; it's more so repeatedly doing so despite being told multiple times to stop aka multiple warnings were already given. And attempting to elude thread bans or continuing despite being topic banned. And those are just few of multiple offenses. I think the harassing people in DMs part that Deagon brought up is also worth considering.

 

[Agnaa]

Evaluating the Hellformer stuff first since it's more pressing and has less content. Will try to chip away at the ban appeal when I can.

Alright, I'm not one to report people right off the bat to give them a chance but I'll be reporting @Hellformer for thier behavior in the thread linked below. Just read though the second on page at their responses towards to Thelastmlg and myself.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/immeasurable-speed-alien-x-and-paradox.163633/ (second page only)

On the second page of the thread The user continues to act rude to me and Thelastmlg who address the issues with his arguments, mentioning our "lack of comprehension" or commenting back "Invincible Ignorance" as if we were not properly giving examples and just being ignorant. I've already asked them twice but they continue to do so and despite that they had continued, once again claiming my argument to disagree falls under argument from incredulity which means they think I disagree solely because I don't believe it and thus it can't be true which means ignorance (that was there last post before mine in which i closed the thread) which isn't the case if they read my arguments they'd had seen.

I suggest another warning. I don't think a ban is needed, what do others think?

I'm not really sure where to draw the line. Is saying "Your argument is a strawman and invincible ignorance that doesn't grapple with my proof" really worse than you saying "Your argument is terrible"?

I'm largely neutral, leaning towards no action. Closing the thread seemed fine due to the swath of staff disagreements.

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

Alright, I'm not one to report people right off the bat to give them a chance but I'll be reporting @Hellformer for thier behavior in the thread linked below. Just read though the second on page at their responses towards to Thelastmlg and myself.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/immeasurable-speed-alien-x-and-paradox.163633/ (second page only)

On the second page of the thread The user continues to act rude to me and Thelastmlg who address the issues with his arguments, mentioning our "lack of comprehension" or commenting back "Invincible Ignorance" as if we were not properly giving examples and just being ignorant. I've already asked them twice but they continue to do so and despite that they had continued, once again claiming my argument to disagree falls under argument from incredulity which means they think I disagree solely because I don't believe it and thus it can't be true which means ignorance (that was there last post before mine in which i closed the thread) which isn't the case if they read my arguments they'd had seen.

I suggest another warning. I don't think a ban is needed, what do others think?

Agree with a warning.

 

[Theglassman12]

@DarkDragonMedeus and again, what part of that justifies a permanent ban? Thats not enough for an extreme ban like that, as for Deagon, the fact I’m not seeing much scans for his claims makes it hard for me to take some of his claims seriously.

 

[Deagonx]

as for Deagon, the fact I’m not seeing much scans for his claims makes it hard for me to take some of his claims seriously.

It was discussed at length when they were first banned and the first time they attempted an appeal, and the evidence was provided at that time and discussed with several admins.

I could go search for all the scans again for the purpose of making the case a third time, but all they've really added to their first appeal is accusations against staff members. I don't think it's appropriate in the first place.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Deagonx again my point remains, don’t really see why I should take the claims you’re making serious if I’m not given any proof that they’ve done these things in the first place, especially when they’ve brought their own scans in.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Evaluating the Hellformer stuff first since it's more pressing and has less content. Will try to chip away at the ban appeal when I can.

I'm not really sure where to draw the line. Is saying "Your argument is a strawman and invincible ignorance that doesn't grapple with my proof" really worse than you saying "Your argument is terrible"?

I'm largely neutral, leaning towards no action. Closing the thread seemed fine due to the swath of staff disagreements.

In my opinion, calling an argument terrible (when I gave my valid reasons why they didn't work) is in no way the same as saying someone lacks comprehension or repeatedly saying legitimate arguments are invincible ignorance despite multiple warnings. Not sure how you can compare the two but ok. Majority of staff agree with a warning but if they are the same then I have no problem with apologizing for my rudeness regarding thay comment.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

@Deagonx again my point remains, don’t really see why I should take the claims you’re making serious if I’m not given any proof that they’ve done these things in the first place, especially when they’ve brought their own scans in.

The scans that were given to higher ranking staff members came from a source that asked to remain anonymous. Trust that fact or don't, it remains irrelevant to me- but I can't understand why you're making this about trusting Deagon or not, given that this discussion involved many more of us- DDM, Damage, myself, and others.

I was privy to this discussion and saw the evidence. I stand by my old position on their ban as a result. I think the two have a habit of manipulating the information available to make themselves the victims- "Deagon and the others don't like us!" sounds like a legitimate concern until you look at what they did to not be liked. I do not like most of the people we end up banning, because they partake in activities that deserve a ban.

So: if your qualm is with Deagon defending himself, then listen to me instead. I was not involved with the Transcendings feud, I was just brought in to lend my opinion on it. What they were doing was at best subversive.