Channel
@devils_agreement
On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Polls · Citations · Cite this entry
367subscribers
-2 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.
| Telegram ID | -1003141195658 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @devils_agreement |
| Created | Between 1 September 2025 and 30 November 2025— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 7 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 3 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 7 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/devils_agreement |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 7 Aug 2026, 00:32 | 367 | -2 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 20:48 | 369 | no change |
| 6 Aug 2026, 08:24 | 369 | first reading |
15 posts held, back to 2 June 2026 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 1 pageof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.
ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views— note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 6 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 15 (2 June 2026 – 6 August 2026) |
| Views total | 194 |
| Reactions total | 28 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 6 Aug 2026, 20:48 UTC |
Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.
Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.
Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.
235 reactions across 15 posts, in 12 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 23.4% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| ❤ | 55 | 23.4% | |
| 🤯 | 50 | 21.3% | |
| 👍 | 40 | 17.0% | |
| 😈 | 26 | 11.1% | |
| 😇 | 20 | 8.51% | |
| 😁 | 17 | 7.23% | |
| 🗿 | 12 | 5.11% | |
| ⚡ | 5 | 2.13% | |
| 🏆 | 4 | 1.70% | |
| 🍾 | 3 | 1.28% | |
| 🦄 | 2 | 0.851% | |
| 🤓 | 1 | 0.426% |
No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.
Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.
Coverage. Reactions were read on 15 of the 15 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 235reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 15 most recent posts we hold, published 2 June 2026 to 6 August 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.
Оскорбление чувств верующих. Часть 3 В предыдущем посте мы разобрались с осквернением, порчей и уничтожением - осталось самое сложное. Итак, ч. 1 ст. 148 УК РФ предусматривает уголовную ответственность за публичные действия, выражающие явное неуважение к обществу и совершенные в целях оскорбления религиозных чувств верующих. С учетом содержания данной статьи и судебной практики по ней, разберем, как избежать обвине…
👍4😈3❤2⚡1
Оскорбление чувств верующих. Часть 2 Теперь давайте разберем, чего конкретно стоит остерегаться в творчестве, чтобы избежать обвинений в оскорблении чувств верующих. Начнем с более очевидных действий, указанных в административной статье: осквернение, порча и уничтожение религиозной или богослужебной литературы, предметов религиозного почитания, знаков или эмблем мировоззренческой символики и атрибутики. С уничтоже…
❤8👍4😇4😈2
Оскорбление чувств верующих. Часть 1 Ну что, мои маленькие любители экстремизма уважаемые подписчики, давайте обсудим уже ставший "классическим" состав, по которому за более чем 10 лет возбуждено сотни административных и уголовных дел. Для начала разберем результаты теста. Тест, конечно, был с подвохом - правильного ответа там нет😁, потому что абсолютно все эти действия привели к возбуждению административных или уго…
❤11👍4😈4😇3
Итак, тест. Совершение каких из этих действий НЕ будет являться оскорблением чувств верующих по мнению российских судов?
The shares total 199%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.
🤯8❤5😁4🗿1
Готовлю большую публикацию (или даже серию публикаций) про старое-доброе "оскорбление чувств верующих". Уже проанализировал более сотни приговоров и постановлений по таким делам🤪 Скоро научу вас, как правильно оскорблять избегать подобных обвинений при затрагивании религиозных тем в различных видах творчества. А пока предлагаю пройти тест, чтобы понять, насколько вы разбираетесь в этом вопросе.
❤8🍾3👍2⚡1
Разобрал, как использовать чужую музыку в своих произведениях, будь то подкаст, видео, песня, игра и любой другой контент, распространяемый публично.
❤4👍3🤓1
Что ждёт нарушителей? Иск о компенсации в размере от 10 тыс. до 5 млн рублей (точную сумму определит суд). А также запрет на использование произведения, в которое неправомерно включена чужая музыка🙁🙁🙁 как мы себя по этим вопросам обезопасили: — записали свой собственный джингл; — если используем музыку, то это всегда цитирование (в допустимом объеме) и указание автора, название произведения в описании выпуска! у …
👍9⚡3❤2
Что ж, давайте разберем серьезно этот несерьезный пример. Согласен с большинством - пропаганды отказа от деторождения тут, на мой взгляд, нет. Как я указывал здесь, информация о соблюдении обета безбрачия (целибата) не может квалифицироваться, как пропаганда отказа от деторождения. Исходя из контекста, речь действительно, скорее всего, идёт о целибате, основанном на внутренних установлениях христианства (о чем свидет…
👍7❤5🤯3
Posted without readable text
🤯5😇5😁2❤1
Чайлдфри - упоминать можно, пропагандировать нельзя? С 2024 года отказ от деторождения (чайлдфри) относится к одной из "запретных" тем в России. Давайте обсудим, как затрагивать этот вопрос в произведениях и контенте, чтобы избежать штрафов, доходящих до нескольких миллионов рублей. Теперь про отказ от деторождения вообще нельзя упоминать? Нет, можно. Ответственность наступает только за пропаганду чайлдфри. Правда,…
🤯16👍3🦄2😈2
Что ж, на мой взгляд, правы те, кто выбрал первый вариант ответа. Те, кто выбрал третий вариант, тоже, по-своему, правы...😱 Как бы это абсурдно это ни звучало, но да, этот старый мем может быть квалифицирован, как материал, содержащий способ совершения суицида: есть пистолет, приставленный к виску человека, есть слово "застрелиться". А значит, он может быть заблокирован РКН. Я уже неоднократно обращал на это внимани…
🤯7🏆4😈3❤2
Posted without readable text
😁5😇5😈3
Showing the 12 most recent of 15 posts we hold for @devils_agreement. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.
The poll we hold for this entry, as Telegram rendered it when we read the post. A poll’s figures keep moving after that, so each one is dated.
Итак, тест. Совершение каких из этих действий НЕ будет являться оскорблением чувств верующих по мнению российских судов?
The shares total 199%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.
Percentages only — there are no per-option vote counts here, because Telegram publishes none.The public post preview gives each option’s share and a single voter total, and nothing else. Multiplying one by the other would produce a per-option tally that looks measured and is not: the shares are rounded to whole numbers before we ever see them. We print what was published and leave the column that does not exist empty.
The shares need not add up to 100.Rounding alone puts many polls at 99 or 101. A poll that allows more than one answer per voter runs well past 100 by design, and several here do. The bars are drawn against a fixed 100% track at each option’s own percentage rather than normalised to the total, so a poll that exceeds it shows that it does instead of being quietly rescaled.
Read from the 15 most recent posts we hold, published 2 June 2026 to 6 August 2026. Telegram labels each poll by kind — an anonymous poll, a quiz, a closed set of final results — and that label is reproduced rather than paraphrased.
Citation-graph rank — 178,932 of 1,169,250entries in the measured graph. A weighted position computed from the forward and mention edges below — republished posts weigh more than named mentions — and recomputed periodically, over the whole graph. Published only as this ordinal position, never as a score: a position is a fact, and a score printed beside one channel’s name would read as a verdict this register does not make. The two counts beneath stay separate for the same reason mentions are never summed with forwards anywhere else on this page — a named-by count costs nothing to manufacture. The top 100 by this measure, or how it is computed.
Republishes
Channels on the register whose posts this channel has forwarded.
Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.
Named by 3 registered channels — every channel on the register whose own posts have named this one, by its current username or any other username it currently holds, merged from two separately captured readings of the same fact so a namer caught by only one of them is not missed and a namer both caught is not counted twice. A username this channel has since dropped is not matched — that handle may belong to someone else now, and crediting today’s namer to yesterday’s owner would misattribute it.
Named by
Channels on the register whose posts name this channel's handle.
Names
Channels on the register whose handles appear in this channel's posts.
A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.
A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 7 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Договор с Дьяволом” (@devils_agreement), 367 subscribers as measured 7 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/devils_agreement.
Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.