Cumulative crises online, when user commenting bursts out as a reaction to what publics see as an improper deed, can hit any public entity, including brands. Inside such a crisis, both cumulative and micro-deliberative patterns of opinion and consensus formation may be traced. Taking into account both the classic deliberation theory and the conceptual framework of cumulative deliberation, we delineate four possible types of consensus within heated user discussions. We also hypothesize that users’ deliberative roles may include those of neutralization and catalyzation of consensus. Taking the Vkusvill retail chain crisis of 2021 as a case, we show that, in discussions polarized due to values polarization, consensus does not form in an agonistic way; consensus may only form in a cumulative way (probably one-sided) and in forms supporting exclusion, rather than inclusion of the Other. Moreover, users who try to play the roles of consensus catalyzers only add to disagreement, just as consensus neutralizers. This poses a question on the forms in which polarized cumulative crises may at all come to harmonization of views and agonistic modes of public consensus.