• 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)

Deagon was in that conversation as well, though his role was less as arbitrator and more as a witness of sorts, I believe.

I would agree that if it were only this evidence, it would not constitute a ban. We are put in a poor situation, however, since Transcendings may freely offer their screenshots (some more relevant than others) whereas we may not. All I can do is reiterate that there was more to it and that I would not change my position from the screenshots offered by them.
 
When they made their first appeal Xearsay argued on their behalf with various staff members for 5 pages or so, in addition to arguing for multiple pages in the RVR. I believe that should not be duplicated. The appeal is sufficiently lengthy without a friend of theirs sniping staff input to argue or accuse.

Overall I'm of the opinion that this appeal attempt is largely redundant. Their stance the first time was "we didn't do anything wrong, it's all lies" and their stance now is "we didn't do anything wrong, it's all lies, and DDM Ant and Deagon have no integrity"

I don't think they've provided a sufficient basis to open the case a third time.
 
Xearsay said:
I got permission from Glass to comment here.

Ok let’s get one thing straight. There’s a whole appeal post made above you addressing every accusation you and Deagon made against them. The appeal isn’t just about whether certain things you accused them of warranted a permaban, It’s primarily about refuting what they were being accused of in the first place. And this shouldn’t really be surprising consider the entire report you posted had no evidence attached to it whatsoever. Some of the accusations in the report are also pretty heavy such as the claim that they’re a part of an “anti VSBW cult” and that they argue with the intention of triggering people with mental disorders. So, If you’re not gonna address what’s being stated in the appeal, then your comment is a big nothing burger just like Deagons.

Second, the offsite stuff doesn’t exists. And third, I don’t recall me or Transcending ever commenting in staff threads without permission, and I’ve also never said what you’re quoting in a staff thread either. In the DC thread I got permission from Armorchompy before posting and Transcending got permission from Firestorm.


Huh???? I was never thread banned or topic banned and neither was Transcending.
Click to expand...
Xearsay said:
The anonymous person you’re talking about is someone who knows Transcending and literally told him about it. He also allowed AKM to make the screenshots public.

The reasons given for Deagon and Ant not liking them were literally stonewalling and Ant calling them a “spiritual successor” of an “anti VSBW cult.” And this imaginary “cult” was something Ant was basically associating with anyone who wants to upgrade DC to high tiers. Medeus even tried to tell me that upgrading comic book characters to higher tiers originated from a cult. Like… lol? None of those reasons are valid at all and I would consider it to be borderline delusional.

IMG_2735.png

And when I looked into some of the users he was calling me and Transcending a spiritual successor of, I could barely find anything pertaining to who they were, and it seemed like they got banned off the site close to half a decade ago.
Click to expand...
I might have been mixed up when I was thinking about posts like this. It was a thread I remember being pinged for thus assumed it was a staff thread, but nvm on your end. But Transcending and Beyond Transcending iirc were different stories. Also, my original post didn't have scans because I was told not to share anything out of safety concerns for the witness. But when the witness was found out, there were some future posts down the line that had some of the evidence. But regardless, AKM sama, Damage, Bambu, Qawsed, and several other Admins and HR group members were contacted in DMs and the staff agreed that they shouldn't be on the wiki given their history of being trouble where ever they go.

I might find the old group DM where this was originally discussed and DarkGrath deserves to at least be informed over everything that went on in the posts. And if Glassman is curious to know more, I wouldn't mind inviting him to that group chat just so he can look over everything that was posted. But still, I trust the opinions of Antvasima and Deagon that Bambu and several other Admins and above agreed with.
 
Xearsay, you were given permission by Glass to respond to things DDM said about you in order to defend yourself.

The majority of your input here has not addressed anything about you. You were not asked for your opinion on your friends ban, and do not have permission to do so. I will be removing comments that go outside the scope of what you were actually given permission for.

 
I've just read through the conversation regarding Transcendings' ban and can say that not every individual who provided evidence to the discussion stated they were comfortable being publicly known, only one.

If this was all confirmed with AKM privately and just... never revealed, then so be it, but I can act only on information given to me.

While I think Xearsay is a valid person to have here, in the past his comments on this situation have caused more chaos than they've soothed, so I will second the statement that, now that you've made your initial case, Xearsay, you should leave the situation to the staff.

I believe Grath is being invited to that initial discussion, for the record, as it was shown to HR back then but Grath was not a part of HR at the time.
 
I have had the opportunity to review some of the evidence regarding Transcending and Beyond_Transcending's perma-bans, and I have cross-referenced this evidence with the information provided in the ban appeal. As of now, I have some thoughts to share on the matter.

While I understand that this situation was difficult to navigate, I must contend that the subversive manner in which this ban was handled was inappropriate. Keeping details of a situation away from public discussions is sometimes necessary, as is ultimately coming to a verdict based on opaque discussions between trusted staff members. I don't have issues with these, under the circumstances. My concern is that the extent to which Transcending and Beyond_Transcending were allowed the opportunity to hear out their accusations and defend themselves from them was severely limited. If we were dealing with evidence of, say, hacking, doxing, or cybercrime, then there are instances in which outright not hearing the accused's side of the story or properly informing them of the circumstances may be necessary for the safety of ourselves and our users - but I hardly consider this situation to have warranted it. Even in quite severe rule violations, it's not unusual to contact the accused to explain the situation to them thoroughly and to offer them a chance to speak for themselves, and I'm not compelled by our lack of communication in this regard.

I also find it contentious that we have essentially treated the two as the same user. They are, obviously, quite interconnected, and many of the aspects brought up have to do with both of their actions - but there are exceptions. The claim regarding their intentions to harass and exploit emotional insecurities in members on-site was a product of statements made by Transcending, and Transcending alone, yet we have largely treated this as an offense of 'the Transcendings'. I don't believe this substantially affected our final verdicts, but it is nevertheless an error that I do not believe we should make, or would make, in most other circumstances.

This all being said, I would not contend that an unban is warranted at this stage. Taking our focus away from the trees to look at the forest, I believe the evidence provided is more than substantial to denote the destabilising influence they had on our discussions and our users. Their actions consistently demonstrated a lack of respect for the wiki and the users on it, and a willingness to knowingly engage in extensive toxicity for the purpose of achieving their ends. And, while some may contest this, I consider their lack of remorse and willingness to acknowledge even their misconduct with very substantial evidence to append the fact that they are not only a detriment to the wiki, but that they do not intend to change their behaviour and would be liable to continue causing similar problems if they were allowed back in their current state.

As such, I do not mind a perma-ban for both users. However, evaluating these offenses in isolation, it's not the approach I would have taken. I would have thought something in the range of 2 years, with the awareness that any further offenses past this period would lead to a perma-ban, would have been more appropriate, and I would like this to stand as an advocation for this reduction.
 
Transcending/Beyond_Transcending really wanted me to evaluate this appeal, but I can't do a particularly good job because I have approximately none of the evidence used in banning them.

But with that disclaimer, here's some things which stood out to me, in order of how they appeared in the appeals:
  1. I don't think there was no-one to defend (Beyond) Transcending, it seems like there were multiple impartial administrators there for those decisions. While it would be nice for as many people as possible to evaluate reports, sometimes privacy concerns come up, as they have here.
  2. The appeal claimed that the idea they'd harass people was disproven, but I don't see how something like that would ever be possible.
  3. Since stonewalling is on-site evidence, there is indeed no privacy concern there, so they (should) have the right to respond publicly about that.
  4. Digging into the response to Deagon's reasons for a ban:
    1. The source wall conversation was an invalid invocation of Hitchen's razor. Deagon had provided multiple pieces of evidence, referring to multiple canonical events as supporting his view. Albeit without scans. If you have trouble finding the evidence due to a lack of scans, you can say something like "I just reread that part and couldn't see anything like it", perhaps even providing those scans lacking the evidence yourself. Or if you don't know where those story events happened, you can say something like "I don't know where that happened, do you know roughly which issue it was?" Just saying "Hitchen's Razor" is wack.
    2. The 16-D thing indeed seems to not be stonewalling, from a glance over that thread.
    3. The claim that not enough warnings/topic bans were given about stonewalling seems plausible, but I don't exactly have a history of that to check.
    4. The other claims made here, pointing out cases of Transcending not stonewalling, or complaining about double standards, or about Deagon/Ant/DDM not liking you, are pointless padding to the appeal, and really shouldn't have been there.
    5. Still, this makes me view Deagon's reasons for a perma-ban (stonewalling and having bad arguments in light of a previous 3 month ban for vote manipulation) as insufficient. However, as we'll go on to see, other plausible ban reasons were provided.
  5. DDM claimed that trying to get Ant/Deagon triggered, trying to detabilize the wiki or at least DC scaling, and harassing people who try to provide evidence of this, all seem like plausible reasons for a ban, but I can't actually evaluate them due to not knowing the evidence.
  6. The extra information provided is largely irrelevant without that further evidence. But I would like to point out that I do not buy "We already know who leaked them; if we wanted to harass them we would've, so just tell us :)" at all. If you want to actually demonstrate that knowledge, you'd have to name the leakers. Otherwise, it just reads as an attempt to try to coerce that information out of us, when you don't actually have it. EDIT: One of them elaborated in Discord DMs, that they know two of the leakers are Josh05 and Xicor, but that there may be others. If those two haven't been harassed, that would be slight, but not conclusive, evidence towards them not harassing leakers (as they could be waiting for us to reveal who any others are).
tl;dr the appeal had many flaws and wastes of time, also had some good points, but I don't have access to the main ban evidence, so I can't actually evaluate whether an unban is justified.
 
Last edited:
The only context i'm aware of was Reio trying to wank abilities and saying only bleach downplays their verse. I don't really see how it translates to that and I was genuinely disgusted by the image. Not ban worthy just something I didn't wanna see when I scrolled and I had no faith you were gunna delete it if it came from me. But anyway you apologized and I won't comment again regarding this topic we good
 
The_Yellow_Topaz said:
Oops, I linked the current blog instead of mine, I have both of them in the search bar because I'd obviously need to see the current blog to announce the changes in my CRT. Why would I ask for input for a blog from years ago?
b171hwt.png


You may check our IPs if you wish.
Click to expand...
I, personally, expected that, after I did 10 seconds of research. I went back through the history of Topaz's blog, and it doesn't seem to have roots in Godly's.

Plus, she mentioned a "10x multiplier" in her post linking to it, which is only present in Topaz's blog.

But we could run an IP check if people wish.
 
CloverDragon03 said:
According to Topaz, it was a mistake and she meant to link a blog she herself made, which she showed an image of. The veracity of this claim is for the evaluating staff to decide though, I believe.
Click to expand...
^

Basically this. I had the old blog that's on the profiles on my search bar, I just typed "manga" to copy-past mine, and copied his instead. It's quite literally just an accident


b171hwt.png


I was in a server with @KingNanaya (iirc) and went on VC with one of the members, they confirmed my voice was completely different. You may call @StrymULTRA as a witness.
 
I've had my suspicions about Topaz being Charmander's sock for a while, so here's some evidence that I've gathered while waiting for them to accidentally out themselves.

Verse Interests
Topaz has interests in the same verses as Charmander (and Tiokill). At first, Topaz engaged in just Dragon Ball and Undertale/Deltarune discussions, but started participating in other verses Charmander supported. This includes:

Hunter x Hunter (Charmander being such a huge fan and supporter of the verse that he genuinely believes that the verse's profiles belong to him, with Tiokill's wiki profile also mentioning to be a fan of the verse) - Topaz participating in a HxH thread where they defend Char's calcs.

Sonic the Hedgehog (With both Charmander and Tiokill being Sonic fans) - This one's more shaky, as Topaz has never expressed interest in the verse, but has participated in discussions regarding it before.

Re:Zero (Charmander making a calc for Reinhard) - Topaz coincidentally arguing for Reinhard in a VS match

Spy x Family - Besides defending Charmander's calcs in the HxH thread, Topaz had also defended another one of Char's calculations in this thread.

There's other minor examples that don't have as much damning evidence, like Topaz being a fan of both One Piece and Calebcity, which are verses Charmander was also a fan of.

Calculations (& Need for Speed)
While being a new member that's pretty good at calculations isn't an immediate red flag that someone's a sock, there's an interesting pattern shown in Topaz's calculations and their relations to Charmander's.

1 2 3 4
Here are just some of Charmander's several calculations regarding Dragon Ball's speed.

1 2 3 4
Both Charmander and Topaz have an interest in completely revamping Dragon Ball's speed, especially Topaz considering how many threads they've made so far about the verse's speed. The first calculation involves Gas, which is a character Charmander made speed calcs about before, as well as revamping Charmander's verse speed blog. The last part doesn't sound like good proof, after all it could just be Topaz finding flaws in the original blog and wanting to improve upon Charmander's works, but Charmander's previous sock, Tiokill, also did things like recalculating Charmander's work.

Gender
Whenever Charmander makes a sock, one of the things he does as his new personalities is pretend to be an individual that's from a different side of the gender spectrum. Charmander went by he/him pronouns, then his first sock, Tiokill, identified as non-binary, and now we have Topaz, who happens to be a MtF trans person.
Is this section nonsense? Likely. Am I trying to make this post seem lenghtier? Maybe. Is this my transphobia flaring up? Possible.
 
Shmooply said:
Hunter x Hunter (Charmander being such a huge fan and supporter of the verse that he genuinely believes that the verse's profiles belong to him, with Tiokill's wiki profile also mentioning to be a fan of the verse) - Topaz participating in a HxH thread where they defend Char's calcs.
Click to expand...
I point out the original calc's flaws and try to come up with my own solutions. I don't defend the calc itself, I say the feat is not to be discarded.
Shmooply said:
Sonic the Hedgehog (With both Charmander and Tiokill being Sonic fans) - This one's more shaky, as Topaz has never expressed interest in the verse, but has participated in discussions regarding it before.
Click to expand...
I have a mild knowledge on the verse and give my two cents every now and then
Really far fetched to say I'm a big fan
I do like the games, but I'm not that into scaling, most of the time I'm commenting on a logical flaw (acceleration vs speed) or how multipliers for the spin dash shouldn't be acquired via calculations
Shmooply said:
Re:Zero (Charmander making a calc for Reinhard) - Topaz coincidentally arguing for Reinhard in a VS match
Click to expand...
Does Charmander show any interest in the show itself? I don't think making a calc is equal to being interested in a particular character or verse
Shmooply said:
Spy x Family - Besides defending Charmander's calcs in the HxH thread, Topaz had also defended another one of Char's calculations in this thread.
Click to expand...
Okay so these are the only two comments I made on that thread. A, B
So this is just a lie.
Shmooply said:
Calculations (& Need for Speed)
While being a new member that's pretty good at calculations isn't an immediate red flag that someone's a sock, there's an interesting pattern shown in Topaz's calculations and their relations to Charmander's.

1 2 3 4
Here are just some of Charmander's several calculations regarding Dragon Ball's speed.

1 2 3 4
Both Charmander and Topaz have an interest in completely revamping Dragon Ball's speed, especially Topaz considering how many threads they've made so far about the verse's speed. The first calculation involves Gas, which is a character Charmander made speed calcs about before, as well as revamping Charmander's verse speed blog. The last part doesn't sound like good proof, after all it could just be Topaz finding flaws in the original blog and wanting to improve upon Charmander's works, but Charmander's previous sock, Tiokill, also did things like recalculating Charmander's work.https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:TioKill/Yorkshin_Gon_Speed_Recalculation
Click to expand...
I usually tackle the current accepted blogs and if I see a problem with them, I make my own versions.

It's not like I can make attack potency calculations for Dragon Ball, it's reached Tier 2 already.

Not to mention the quality of my works far exceeds his by a WIDE margin, just look at the difference between our speed scaling blogs

We also don't use the same program to pixelscale, and I criticize his version of the calc and assumptions he's made harshly.
Shmooply said:
Gender
Whenever Charmander makes a sock, one of the things he does as his new personalities is pretend to be an individual that's from a different side of the gender spectrum. Charmander went by he/him pronouns, then his first sock, Tiokill, identified as non-binary, and now we have Topaz, who happens to be a MtF trans person.
Is this section nonsense? Likely. Am I trying to make this post seem lenghtier? Maybe. Is this my transphobia flaring up? Possible.
Click to expand...
Well, I agree with that last part.

Again, people that use the forum have heard my voice in the past and can confirm I have a feminine voice
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'mma be real, all of this evidence seems flimsy at best, if not downright nonsensical (That gender section is just ????)

HxH, Dragon Ball, Sonic, Spy x Family are all very popular verses. You're going to need more concrete evidence to accuse someone of being a sock besides pointing to a few instances of them commenting on big verses.
Also as Topaz noted she has argued against some of the stuff Charmander calced/did, so not like that front is solid either (Obviously Charmander could have changed his opinions, but you can't prove that so)

As for the Discord pfp, guys come on, people use similar shit all the time, this is hardly concrete evidence, especially when it seems to be pulled from what I assume is a decently popular tweet.
 
I'll report this thread as a troll thread and the maker of it, @Mehmetnegsss as a troll

He uses a skin of a character (we never count skins as something that is part of the lore since its just visual effects) to argue that a feat is 4-A. When I mention that if something looks like a star it doesn't automatically make it a star he says he will stop dealing with me and tells me to go cry somwhere else. This is the feat in question, an attack literally called sandstorm that is, in fact, a sandstorm in the game itself.

If you look at the screenshots in his CRT his name in the game is ADOLF HITLER. This makes me suspect that he is a troll even further.

He uses the argument that someone lifting an elephant is a 7-B feat

He uses random whataboutisms about random popular characters fully unrelated to this as arguments

So overall, he makes a CRT that hinges on one feat of one skin of one character in the game. The moment he is confronted about it he gets rude and refuses to argue about it further. Half of the sentences he writes are word jumble which barely make sense. He is trying to push for a 7-B feat that doesn't exist and is based on Nita apparently lifting an elephant. He uses random whataboutisms to argue. He somehow knows all of this about all these tier 2 characters in the whataboutisms and yet he is extremely new and finally, the name in the screenshots is a very funny part of the whole thing.

I'll let y'all decide on what this is, a guy who just doesn't know how the site works at all, a child or a troll.
 
oh yeah and now he is challenging me to go to a discord debate, telling me that I am not a man and shouldn't trust admins
vsbattles.com

Brawl Stars Sandy 4-B/4-C

 "I'm so tired of winning" Sandy ""Sleep to dream" Sandy SUMMARY Sandy is a Legendary Brawler with moderately high health, above-average movement speed, and tremendous utility with her Super but moderately low damage output. Attacks by throwing sand that spreads and pierces enemies. Super...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com

I think it's pretty clear what kind of person this is.
 
Bro is digging his grave at this point
vsbattles.com

Brawl Stars Sandy 4-B/4-C

 "I'm so tired of winning" Sandy ""Sleep to dream" Sandy SUMMARY Sandy is a Legendary Brawler with moderately high health, above-average movement speed, and tremendous utility with her Super but moderately low damage output. Attacks by throwing sand that spreads and pierces enemies. Super...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com

I will stop linking his messages because I don't wanna clutter the thread
 
Arceus0x said:
I'll report this thread as a troll thread and the maker of it, @Mehmetnegsss as a troll

He uses a skin of a character (we never count skins as something that is part of the lore since its just visual effects) to argue that a feat is 4-A. When I mention that if something looks like a star it doesn't automatically make it a star he says he will stop dealing with me and tells me to go cry somwhere else. This is the feat in question, an attack literally called sandstorm that is, in fact, a sandstorm in the game itself.

If you look at the screenshots in his CRT his name in the game is ADOLF HITLER. This makes me suspect that he is a troll even further.

He uses the argument that someone lifting an elephant is a 7-B feat

He uses random whataboutisms about random popular characters fully unrelated to this as arguments

So overall, he makes a CRT that hinges on one feat of one skin of one character in the game. The moment he is confronted about it he gets rude and refuses to argue about it further. Half of the sentences he writes are word jumble which barely make sense. He is trying to push for a 7-B feat that doesn't exist and is based on Nita apparently lifting an elephant. He uses random whataboutisms to argue. He somehow knows all of this about all these tier 2 characters in the whataboutisms and yet he is extremely new and finally, the name in the screenshots is a very funny part of the whole thing.

I'll let y'all decide on what this is, a guy who just doesn't know how the site works at all, a child or a troll.
Click to expand...
The thread does look outrageous and full or horrible arguments. However, it's common for new users to not know better. Also, him having "Adolf Hitler" as a gaming username isn't really as serious; it's a joke of poor taste more likely but unless that was a username used here, we cannot hold it against someone for that.

The "Go cry somewhere else" comment on the other hand was indeed inflammatory. Though saying "You're getting a 0 on an English test" or calling him a troll at the very first post wasn't the best approach to respond.
 
Could someone please delete this disgusting image? Seeing this makes me want to vomit
vsbattles.com

Goku vs Akatsuki

Goku Classic 🆚 Akatsuki The only restrictions here will be Obito Uchiha and the Edo Tensei forms. Goku will have blood in his eyes when he discovers that Akatsuki killed his friends and his grandpa, to find the Dragon Balls to have everything he wants
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
31 32 33
Replies
1K
Views
96K
Antvasima
Antvasima
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
2K
GarrixianXD
GarrixianXD
AThe1412
Can you restrict a character's Standard Equipment if it gives them a different tier?
Replies
2
Views
497
TheGreatJedi13
TheGreatJedi13
Back
Top