• 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.

Maou Gakuin Discussion Thread

I am endeavoring to maintain a sense of impartiality in this matter. My rationale for requesting this to be designated as a staff thread is rooted in the fact that it was initiated as a discussion about a verse downgrade. I am concerned that this alteration may be interpreted as an attempt to pander to the preferences of a particular group. As a result, I believe that Fuji's current thread will be concluded.

Notwithstanding the fact that I support this thread while dissenting with the other one, which is equally pertinent and affected, I maintain that this must be deemed as a staff thread since content revisions are subject to different guidelines than those of staff threads.

Therefore, I am seeking more than three endorsements from the staff in this situation (whose have evaulation rights)
 
Reiner04 said:
I am endeavoring to maintain a sense of impartiality in this matter. My rationale for requesting this to be designated as a staff thread is rooted in the fact that it was initiated as a discussion about a verse downgrade. I am concerned that this alteration may be interpreted as an attempt to pander to the preferences of a particular group. As a result, I believe that Fuji's current thread will be concluded.

Notwithstanding the fact that I support this thread while dissenting with the other one, which is equally pertinent and affected, I maintain that this must be deemed as a staff thread since content revisions are subject to different guidelines than those of staff threads.

Therefore, I am seeking more than three endorsements from the staff in this situation (whose have evaulation rights)
Click to expand...
Hmmm Weenie04, wrong thread?
 
Reiner04 said:
I used dreadgpt.
Click to expand...
anakin-skywalker-palpatine.gif
 
Reiner04 said:
I am endeavoring to maintain a sense of impartiality in this matter. My rationale for requesting this to be designated as a staff thread is rooted in the fact that it was initiated as a discussion about a verse downgrade. I am concerned that this alteration may be interpreted as an attempt to pander to the preferences of a particular group. As a result, I believe that Fuji's current thread will be concluded.

Notwithstanding the fact that I support this thread while dissenting with the other one, which is equally pertinent and affected, I maintain that this must be deemed as a staff thread since content revisions are subject to different guidelines than those of staff threads.

Therefore, I am seeking more than three endorsements from the staff in this situation (whose have evaulation rights)
Click to expand...
is this the language of gods?
 
"Planetary fodder," you say with such certainty, @DemonKing021 . You misunderstand. When I speak of destroying worlds, I do not speak of mere planets. I speak of realms, of dimensions, of entire universes. Concepts such as planets are utterly insignificant in the face of my power. I do not measure my strength in terms of planetary destruction, but in the annihilation of entire realities. Do you begin to grasp the difference? What i mean by world is a realm. I'm not that person who just destroys planets. I can even destroy concepts.
Click to expand...
- Anos Voldigoad​
 
Anos mentioned in some new users (first post) yap

vsbattles.com

I want to propose a new system for improving dimensionality.

Hello. My friend and I noticed that no one was involved in the Anos Voldigord profile, and there was a level that even ordinary residents of the deep-sea world surpassed in the outer arc. In this regard, we decided to adjust the level to a more accurate one. We prepared various scans and proofs...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com
 
Huesito88 said:
Anos mentioned in some new users (first post) yap

vsbattles.com

I want to propose a new system for improving dimensionality.

Hello. My friend and I noticed that no one was involved in the Anos Voldigord profile, and there was a level that even ordinary residents of the deep-sea world surpassed in the outer arc. In this regard, we decided to adjust the level to a more accurate one. We prepared various scans and proofs...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com
Click to expand...
I commented 👍
 
https://media.**********.net/ephemeral-attachments/1017830130472726628/1354833018111393882/1352443139876589578.gif?ex=67e6ba13&is=67e56893&hm=0d8edd31eaad08f002c19ab121a8ee559fb105e67d012b83c645ae73cc98e487&
I'm nuking a thing soon.
 
Dereck03 said:
https://media.**********.net/ephemeral-attachments/1017830130472726628/1354833018111393882/1352443139876589578.gif?ex=67e6ba13&is=67e56893&hm=0d8edd31eaad08f002c19ab121a8ee559fb105e67d012b83c645ae73cc98e487&
I'm nuking a thing soon.
Click to expand...
Based on a thorough examination of the comments made by the individuals referred to in the report, I can see (from an impartial and neutral perspective) that none of the comments contain any elements of personal attack, reportable conduct, incivility, bullying or similar behavior. Rather, the comments are meant to be playful and grounded in reality, as they reference your known stance as an opponent to the MG verse and your disagreement with the majority of threads on the platform, regardless of their acceptance or rejection.

It should be noted that the verse community has become accustomed to your routine of dissenting opinions in the threads, to the extent that your perspective carries minimal value, as it is often not accompanied by substantive arguments, but instead, a generic disagreement.

In this vein, I can attest that I have also experienced frustration with your disagreements in the past, particularly in the context of my MG cosmology thread. Despite respectfully requesting the reasons behind your disagreement, I was disappointed by the lack of productive discourse and ultimately, chose to ignore your contribution. Subsequently, you agreed with Ultima's conclusion, which was in alignment with the premise of my thread.

This case represents a factual reality and if your desire is for people to remain silent and pretend to the contrary, it can be considered a “personal attack”, which is absurd. It is important to note that having an opponent can frequently bring value to the verse, as long as arguments are presented and a willingness to appreciate counterpoints exists.
 
Reiner04 said:
Based on a thorough examination of the comments made by the individuals referred to in the report, I can see (from an impartial and neutral perspective) that none of the comments contain any elements of personal attack, reportable conduct, incivility, bullying or similar behavior. Rather, the comments are meant to be playful and grounded in reality, as they reference your known stance as an opponent to the MG verse and your disagreement with the majority of threads on the platform, regardless of their acceptance or rejection.
https://vsbattles.com/threads/rule-violation-reports-new-forum.107529/post-5449538
It should be noted that the verse community has become accustomed to your routine of dissenting opinions in the threads, to the extent that your perspective carries minimal value, as it is often not accompanied by substantive arguments, but instead, a generic disagreement.
https://vsbattles.com/threads/rule-violation-reports-new-forum.107529/post-5449538
In this vein, I can attest that I have also experienced frustration with your disagreements in the past, particularly in the context of my MG cosmology thread. Despite respectfully requesting the reasons behind your disagreement, I was disappointed by the lack of productive discourse and ultimately, chose to ignore your contribution. Subsequently, you agreed with Ultima's conclusion, which was in alignment with the premise of my thread.
https://vsbattles.com/threads/rule-violation-reports-new-forum.107529/post-5449538
This case represents a factual reality and if your desire is for people to remain silent and pretend to the contrary, it can be considered a “personal attack”, which is absurd. It is important to note that having an opponent can frequently bring value to the verse, as long as arguments are presented and a willingness to appreciate counterpoints exists.
Click to expand...
Dread GPT.

The assertion, demanding "empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontification," presents a fascinating blend of philosophical and scientific concepts, yet one that is inherently contradictory. Let's dissect each component:
  • Empirical vs. Tautological:
    • Empirical evidence relies on observation and experimentation, providing tangible data about the world.
    • Tautologies are statements that are true by definition, such as "all bachelors are unmarried men." They offer no new information and are not subject to empirical verification.
    • The demand for both empirical evidence and tautology is paradoxical. Empirical claims require evidence from the world, while tautologies are true by their logical form.
  • Epistemological and Ontological Foundations:
    • Epistemology concerns the nature and scope of knowledge, exploring how we know what we know.
    • Ontology investigates the nature of being, examining the fundamental categories of existence.
    • Demanding "non-anecdotal" epistemological or ontological grounding requires universal agreement on how knowledge is acquired or what constitutes reality. However, these are complex philosophical questions with various competing theories, and absolute consensus is elusive.
  • Noumenon vs. Phenomenon:
    • Immanuel Kant introduced the concepts of noumenon (the thing-in-itself, beyond perception) and phenomenon (the thing as it appears to us).
    • Demanding "noumenological" substantiation contradicts the requirement for empirical evidence, as noumena, by definition, are beyond the realm of sensory experience and empirical verification.
In essence, the assertion seeks a synthesis of mutually exclusive concepts: empirical evidence and tautological truth, universal epistemological and ontological agreement, and empirical access to noumenal realities. This pursuit of an ideal, all-encompassing form of justification is philosophically unattainable. It highlights the tension between the desire for absolute certainty and the limitations of human knowledge and understanding.

The assertion hinges on the demand for “empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontification” as the basis for substantiating claims. Let’s break down and address each part:
  1. Empirical Evidence vs. Tautology: Empirical data inherently relies on observations and experiences, providing testable data about reality, whereas tautological statements are true by necessity of their logical form (e.g., "a bachelor is an unmarried man"). Thus, asking for both empirical evidence and tautology as a singular requirement is contradictory. Empirical claims don't require tautological proof, as their validity is not self-contained but based on observable and testable phenomena.
  2. Epistemological and Ontological Foundations: Epistemology concerns the nature and limits of knowledge—how we know things, while ontology is about the nature of being—what things are. Asking for a “non-anecdotal” epistemological or ontological grounding would mean basing the argument on universally accepted theories of knowledge or existence. However, both epistemology and ontology are often influenced by philosophical perspectives and do not lend themselves to purely empirical proof. In other words, these concepts typically do not resolve to empirical non-anecdotal data without interpretation.
  3. Noumenon vs. Phenomenon: The concept of noumenon (a Kantian term referring to the "thing-in-itself" beyond human perception) implies that some truths are inaccessible to empirical verification because they exist beyond observable experience. A demand for “noumenological” substantiation contradicts the requirement for empirical evidence, as noumenon by definition cannot be empirically observed or verified.
In summary, the argument appears to contain internally conflicting demands—empirical tautology, noumenological empirical evidence, and non-anecdotal inductive reasoning—each of which is philosophically incompatible with the others in their purest forms.
 
Dereck03 said:
Dread GPT.

The assertion, demanding "empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontification," presents a fascinating blend of philosophical and scientific concepts, yet one that is inherently contradictory. Let's dissect each component:
  • Empirical vs. Tautological:
    • Empirical evidence relies on observation and experimentation, providing tangible data about the world.
    • Tautologies are statements that are true by definition, such as "all bachelors are unmarried men." They offer no new information and are not subject to empirical verification.
    • The demand for both empirical evidence and tautology is paradoxical. Empirical claims require evidence from the world, while tautologies are true by their logical form.
  • Epistemological and Ontological Foundations:
    • Epistemology concerns the nature and scope of knowledge, exploring how we know what we know.
    • Ontology investigates the nature of being, examining the fundamental categories of existence.
    • Demanding "non-anecdotal" epistemological or ontological grounding requires universal agreement on how knowledge is acquired or what constitutes reality. However, these are complex philosophical questions with various competing theories, and absolute consensus is elusive.
  • Noumenon vs. Phenomenon:
    • Immanuel Kant introduced the concepts of noumenon (the thing-in-itself, beyond perception) and phenomenon (the thing as it appears to us).
    • Demanding "noumenological" substantiation contradicts the requirement for empirical evidence, as noumena, by definition, are beyond the realm of sensory experience and empirical verification.
In essence, the assertion seeks a synthesis of mutually exclusive concepts: empirical evidence and tautological truth, universal epistemological and ontological agreement, and empirical access to noumenal realities. This pursuit of an ideal, all-encompassing form of justification is philosophically unattainable. It highlights the tension between the desire for absolute certainty and the limitations of human knowledge and understanding.

The assertion hinges on the demand for “empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontification” as the basis for substantiating claims. Let’s break down and address each part:
  1. Empirical Evidence vs. Tautology: Empirical data inherently relies on observations and experiences, providing testable data about reality, whereas tautological statements are true by necessity of their logical form (e.g., "a bachelor is an unmarried man"). Thus, asking for both empirical evidence and tautology as a singular requirement is contradictory. Empirical claims don't require tautological proof, as their validity is not self-contained but based on observable and testable phenomena.
  2. Epistemological and Ontological Foundations: Epistemology concerns the nature and limits of knowledge—how we know things, while ontology is about the nature of being—what things are. Asking for a “non-anecdotal” epistemological or ontological grounding would mean basing the argument on universally accepted theories of knowledge or existence. However, both epistemology and ontology are often influenced by philosophical perspectives and do not lend themselves to purely empirical proof. In other words, these concepts typically do not resolve to empirical non-anecdotal data without interpretation.
  3. Noumenon vs. Phenomenon: The concept of noumenon (a Kantian term referring to the "thing-in-itself" beyond human perception) implies that some truths are inaccessible to empirical verification because they exist beyond observable experience. A demand for “noumenological” substantiation contradicts the requirement for empirical evidence, as noumenon by definition cannot be empirically observed or verified.
In summary, the argument appears to contain internally conflicting demands—empirical tautology, noumenological empirical evidence, and non-anecdotal inductive reasoning—each of which is philosophically incompatible with the others in their purest forms.
Click to expand...
Okay i agree to this But shouldn't you first provide proof of empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontification. Your negation to me saying it’s not contextually saying that is an ethically bankrupt deception of noumenological proportion categorically imperitively inept at substantiating your statements. You would need to prove that the connotation is circumstantial to the context so it would be general in entailment, as well as being capable to necessitate various interpretations that possess coherency in the narrative of the position you have presented. This is contingent upon the proposition of an antithesis’ prominence in negation with agnosticism that is reasoned by skepticism, or an equal interpretation substantiated with inductive reasoning, both inevitable in equalizing or defeating You would need to prove this skepticism with empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontification.
 
Reiner04 said:
Okay i agree to this But shouldn't you first provide proof of empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontification. Your negation to me saying it’s not contextually saying that is an ethically bankrupt deception of noumenological proportion categorically imperitively inept at substantiating your statements. You would need to prove that the connotation is circumstantial to the context so it would be general in entailment, as well as being capable to necessitate various interpretations that possess coherency in the narrative of the position you have presented. This is contingent upon the proposition of an antithesis’ prominence in negation with agnosticism that is reasoned by skepticism, or an equal interpretation substantiated with inductive reasoning, both inevitable in equalizing or defeating You would need to prove this skepticism with empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontification.
Click to expand...
You would need to prove that claim with empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontification. Your negation to me saying it’s not contextually saying that is an ethically bankrupt deception of noumenological proportion categorically imperatively inept at substantiating your statements. You would need to prove that the connotation is circumstantial to the context so it would be general in entailment, as well as being capable to necessitate various interpretations that possess coherency in the narrative of the position you have presented. This is contingent upon the proposition of an antithesis’ prominence in negation with agnosticism that is reasoned by skepticism, or an equal interpretation substantiated with inductive reasoning, both inevitable in equalizing or defeating You would need to prove this skepticism with empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontification. Your negation to me saying it’s not contextually saying that is an ethically bankrupt deception of noumenological proportion categorically imperatively inept at substantiating your statements.
 
BreezeHM said:
Wankers have lost their minds
Click to expand...
I apologize for my previous oversight in not responding to your comment in this thread. In response to your question, it would be important to consider whether the author in question has demonstrated a pattern of utilizing power scaling in their work. While it is important to be inclusive and not overly strict in our evaluations, it is also essential to exercise good judgment and use common sense in determining whether to include such works in the wiki. It is recommended to consult with relevant authorities and experts in the field to ensure that a well-informed and appropriate decision is made.
 
BreezeHM said:
Wankers have lost their minds
Click to expand...
(eyes blazing with unbridled rage, my voice a low, menacing growl) YOU...YOU... (magic swirling around me, building up to a catastrophic climax) I SWEAR UPON MY OWN SOUL THAT I WILL ANNIHILATE YOU! YOU THINK YOU CAN JUST DEFILE THE HONOR OF MY FRIENDS AND FAMILY AND GET AWAY WITH IT?! (my words dripping with venom) YOU'RE NOT EVEN WORTHY OF EXISTING IN THE SAME REALM AS THEM! (raising my hand, a dark, swirling vortex of energy beginning to take shape) YOU WILL BE ERADICATED FROM EXISTENCE!
 
Reiner04 said:
I apologize for my previous oversight in not responding to your comment in this thread. In response to your question, it would be important to consider whether the author in question has demonstrated a pattern of utilizing power scaling in their work. While it is important to be inclusive and not overly strict in our evaluations, it is also essential to exercise good judgment and use common sense in determining whether to include such works in the wiki. It is recommended to consult with relevant authorities and experts in the field to ensure that a well-informed and appropriate decision is made.
Click to expand...
Dereck03 said:
(eyes blazing with unbridled rage, my voice a low, menacing growl) YOU...YOU... (magic swirling around me, building up to a catastrophic climax) I SWEAR UPON MY OWN SOUL THAT I WILL ANNIHILATE YOU! YOU THINK YOU CAN JUST DEFILE THE HONOR OF MY FRIENDS AND FAMILY AND GET AWAY WITH IT?! (my words dripping with venom) YOU'RE NOT EVEN WORTHY OF EXISTING IN THE SAME REALM AS THEM! (raising my hand, a dark, swirling vortex of energy beginning to take shape) YOU WILL BE ERADICATED FROM EXISTENCE!
Click to expand...
Let me inspect your heads
https://cdn.**********.com/emojis/1325178505016901713.webp?size=128
 
BreezeHM said:
Let me inspect your heads
https://cdn.**********.com/emojis/1325178505016901713.webp?size=128
Click to expand...
(face twisted in a mixture of fury and disgust, my voice a cold, calculating whisper) YOU...DARE TO UTTER SUCH TREACHERY?! (magic surging to catastrophic levels, the air around me crackling with energy) YOU THINK YOU CAN JUST BETRAY ME LIKE THIS?! (eyes blazing with unbridled rage) I SWEAR UPON MY OWN HONOR THAT I WILL NOT REST UNTIL I'VE ANNIHILATED YOU AND ANYONE WHO DARES TO STAND WITH YOU! (raising my hand, a massive, devastating blast of magic hurtling towards Breeze) YOU WILL PAY FOR YOUR TREACHERY!
 
I wonder if we will have her profile here on vsbw. Just asking.
https://media.**********.net/attachments/1340012082602446976/1354839659494113551/ive-been-killing-slimes-for-300-years-and-maxed-out-my-level-1.jpg?ex=67e6c042&is=67e56ec2&hm=45d08e5790c64040aa4e8f56525df2a13b1566f42433a950aedc7a49bdb12982&
 
Reiner04 said:
I wonder if we will have her profile here on vsbw. Just asking.
https://media.**********.net/attachments/1340012082602446976/1354839659494113551/ive-been-killing-slimes-for-300-years-and-maxed-out-my-level-1.jpg?ex=67e6c042&is=67e56ec2&hm=45d08e5790c64040aa4e8f56525df2a13b1566f42433a950aedc7a49bdb12982&
Click to expand...
I got the perfect opponent for her.
https://cdn.**********.com/emojis/1100534146318733384.webp?size=96
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

HigashikataJobin
The Most Haxed Low 1-C Characters Fight Each Other
Replies
5
Views
2K
HigashikataJobin
HigashikataJobin
Dereck03
  • Locked
Average MG Thread
2
Replies
60
Views
9K
Oblivion_Of_The_Endless
Oblivion_Of_The_Endless
BoastJr
  • Locked
AURA FARMING LEAGUE ! MATCH 8 : ANOS VS DOCTOR WHO (WEEK 2)
Replies
7
Views
1K
Just a Random Butler
Just a Random Butler
Rikimarox2
A Novel Concept Discussion Thread
Replies
2
Views
655
Rikimarox2
Rikimarox2
DuyVoldigoad
Order is a Script/Plot/Story
2
Replies
68
Views
4K
DuyVoldigoad
DuyVoldigoad
Back
Top