- 3,252
- 1,092
Ant, I never called anybody out on bias, just that their opinion shouldn't be the end of the world.
-
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.
Low 2-C Mario: In The Final
- Thread starter DatOneWeeb
- Start date
- Status
- 14,646
- 20,264
The 3 feats that are being argued about now were initially brought up on the first page hundreds of replies ago and there's still no agreement on them. I don't think we're going to reach a conclusion.
- 3,252
- 1,092
Let's just start bringing up feats, one by one, to determine whether it's right or not. Then reach the conclusion.
- 165,016
- 71,813
We make a great effort to try to pick the members that seem most unbiased, rational, and reliable, so the evaluation process works properly, and have mostly managed to do so.
We also have no better alternative solutions, as the entire community and all wiki character ratings would fragment into incoherent and unreliable chaos otherwise.
It isn't a perfect system, and such a thing does not exist, but it is by far preferable to the alternative, which is no system at all.
- 40,446
- 12,912
The point of these threads are to reach a conclusion. We postpone it and it’ll never get concluded, with the opposition winning solely due to stonewalling.
- 3,252
- 1,092
Ant, again, I'm not questioning staff itself, just the whole "staff agrees with me, you're wrong" thing. Who are staff members? Organized people who need to watch the discussion for it not become agressive. They are unbiased, so there is a bit more value to their words, but not to the point of only staff words mattering, no matter how many average users disagree.
- 29,905
- 30,937
There are days where I feel like me, AKM Sama, and Antvasima are among the few staff who strive for the balanced middle ground. A lot of them are usually either too strict or too lenient. Or go back and forth between one or the other. But anyway, AKM Sama makes really good points about the trend, but the difference is that verses infamous for being nonlinear and all over the place should be midballed unlike most linear verses that actually have an official linear Power level system.
But anyway, I can talk with Dino and a few other staff about this yes.
But anyway, I can talk with Dino and a few other staff about this yes.
- 165,016
- 71,813
It is derailing because of the ongoing subversive undermining of our entire systematic process, which is the glue that has made this community and wiki function over the years.
Anyway, we have to keep our system, as there is no better available alternative, so that is not going to change. The problem is when a few of our staff members do not live up to the intended standards. Then again, it is also unreasonable to expect inhuman perfection.
- 3,252
- 1,092
With all due respect, the only thing AKM said was "lol staff disagrees gg no re".
- 165,016
- 71,813
Again, ideally, the staff should listen closely to the arguments of regular members, and agree when they make sense, but they also need to have the ability to say no when necessary.
That said, technically speaking, only bureaucrats, administrators/sysops, and thread moderators have been selected because of their abilities to do so.
- 165,016
- 71,813
No. That is not remotely what he intended, as I explained above.
- 32,315
- 20,163
That's my point. Using "She can be damaged in gameplay" isn't an argument.
- 3,252
- 1,092
Well, maybe not goombas, but the likes of Bowser and Koopalings.
- 11,061
- 13,756
Read my comment again and don't try to misconstrue what I said. I clearly did not mention staff disagreement as the sole reason and I clearly mentioned that it is because there are many regular users as well who disagree. In fact, there are staff who agree. My point was never about staff only. It was about that the same feats are being discussed over and over again for 1000 comments now which indicates the level of contention there is for those feats. But, the "fans" and "supporters" come in numbers and drown the other side (again consisting of both staff and regular users) and constantly bring up the same points until the other side gives up, but they will never let any of their arguments go even if there is contention because it is a battle of attrition apparently.
- 3,252
- 1,092
Well, that's fair. Sorry if I was rude.
- 32,315
- 20,163
It's not true. Several 4-A feats are people destroying galaxies or blowing shit up. Galactus has a very famous 4-A feat where he destroys several light-years of space with an energy blast.
Off-screen means we don't know how.
We cannot inform anything because Ocam's Razor is insufficient. I think that, given that the only other time - in the same scene - where Rosalina is exposed to a universe-destroyed blast, she shields the heroes - the heroes which you insist aren't weaker than her at all, mind you. Therefore Occam's Razor dictates that she would have shielded herself too.
If you don't want to debunk them you are agreeing that you cannot argue with it.
You saying "Lol this is dumb." isn't an argument. You're just letting your opinion matter.
I can cite several games where being hurt by fodder enemies is not only valid but part of the lore. Every single Roguelike game ever where the character is canonically constantly dying and trying again is predicated on the character being weak enough to be harmed by "fodder" enemies. Zagreus from the Game Hades is canonically vulnerable enough to be killed by every single enemy in the game, and the game's script includes dialogue of characters reacting to you dying to every single enemy and hazard in the game, and yet he can also fight Hades, the final boss.
Without cutscenes or proper lore you cannot make a statement about the durability of a character from a gameplay-only videogame.
- 3,252
- 1,092
A lot of people are still arguing for Low 2-C. I repeat my suggestion. Let's go over each feat one by one.
- 15,565
- 11,858
Every feat has been discussed though with no conclusion and this thread is stupid-long already.
- 9,268
- 3,257
Mario cast surviving Sammer Kingdom's destruction being Low 2-C was accepted
- 3,252
- 1,092
I repeat, the more you complain about it, the longer it is
- 32,315
- 20,163
I'm fine with closign the thread.
- 11,061
- 13,756
Ant:
Only as a "compromise" which I have a number of problems with. This isn't how we should be doing things as I already said in one of my posts. By that logic, you can spam multiple tiers in majority of character profiles if they get a thread like this. And I am certain Dino was also against Low 2-C and has been from the start.
If you want to still continue this discussion, you should ask more staff members who don't have a horse in the race to comment so that they can actually help steer this thread one way or another. But I doubt they'd want to get involved in a thread with 1000 comments and I highly doubt people would be able to still let go of their arguments if the conclusion is not in their favor because of arguments like "staff agree/disagree gg" and "what about the number of arguments presented for my side", and the thread would just never end.
Only as a "compromise" which I have a number of problems with. This isn't how we should be doing things as I already said in one of my posts. By that logic, you can spam multiple tiers in majority of character profiles if they get a thread like this. And I am certain Dino was also against Low 2-C and has been from the start.
If you want to still continue this discussion, you should ask more staff members who don't have a horse in the race to comment so that they can actually help steer this thread one way or another. But I doubt they'd want to get involved in a thread with 1000 comments and I highly doubt people would be able to still let go of their arguments if the conclusion is not in their favor because of arguments like "staff agree/disagree gg" and "what about the number of arguments presented for my side", and the thread would just never end.
- 2,129
- 226
The thread will end if we all come together and agree on something like regular people. Making another thread will just start the mess over and be back to square one..so I’m fine with this thread staying on as long as we stop firing at each other something will be agreed upon on
- 12,430
- 4,543
At this point let's just make votes and call it a day.
- 9,024
- 9,240
So I take you don't agree with a variable tier for Mario. Can we at least know why? That would help to move the thread along.
- 9,024
- 9,240
That's precisely what AKM wants to avoid, tho.
- 14,646
- 20,264
If we decided CRTs via vote count you could literally get any CRT accepted with a FRA train
- 165,016
- 71,813
Exactly.
- 9,024
- 9,240
Indeed. I am really curious to know his reasoning. Since, well, even Dino wasn't opposed to it.
- 12,430
- 4,543
Then how else can we reach a conclusion?
- 11,061
- 13,756
The fact that the thread has gone over 1000 comments and there was still no conclusion reached about the tier 2 feats (except for the "compromise" solution which basically just means acceptance of tier 2 and invalidates all the arguments made against it), should be a conclusion in and of itself that those feats have serious problems of unreliability and thus shouldn't be used. People should be able to see this.
- 3,252
- 1,092
Yeah right, but this means the opposing side wins via stonewall
- 11,061
- 13,756
It's not a stonewall when they have provided ample of reasons for why those feats are either unreliable or don't count. And just because the first side won't acknowledge those reasons as legitimate (because well, why would they, they are the other side) doesn't mean those reasons stop existing and the other side is stonewalling for literally no reason.
- 507
- 387
Surface area for low 2-C isn't an argument neither the argument against olly
- 32,315
- 20,163
This.
There IS a conclusion but obviously the people invested in the upgrade will keep fighting.
- 383
- 218
Ample reasons? Let’s dive into the opposing sides arguments:
Matt: Has only debunked 1 out of 9 Low 2-C feats, most of his arguments goes against the wiki’s standards, and has shotgunned so hard that now we have 1K posts and reading all of the stuff that has been said is going to be damn near impossible to read if you don’t have enough free time to.
Ryu: Says no because “wank”, then talks about Mario not being a Shounen and Rosalina scaling which doesn’t covers all of Weeb’s posts.
Dino: Says no because “we can’t have low 2-C toad” and scaling problems. This didn’t cover anything and was debunked, then he comes back to talk about circular scaling with Bowser, which he claims most of the feats are from beating amped versions of him when it’s only one and cal, blaze, and I’m pretty sure even DDM debunked this.
I understand that staff are trusted members that can handle these situations well, but they cannot be above regular members if they don’t have good counterarguments and are just saying “no” without even going over what was said in the crt. This is why people are mad. Staff members are saying “no” with not much reason, and it gets accepted anyway because they’re staff, and all of these good arguments the first side is arguing and all of the effort that Blaze has put into this just gets ignored because “we don’t want it”.
- 32,315
- 20,163
1. Surface Area was used for one feat.
2. Olly's problem is absolutely real. It would never be accepted as Low 2-C in any other verse, you are asking for blatant favoritism beause Olly says he is "folding the very fabric of reality" with no further context that he be ranked as Low 2-C. In fact, this isn't even the first time, because months ago you guys wanted Low 2-C Culex based on a statement about him being "the master of all space-time" with no further feat or context behind the single line of dialogue.
- Status
Similar threads
