• 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.

Removing WOG from Ben 10

Saqphire said:
E.g. Bruno Velazquez (who's not even a writer for GoW) contradicting the novels and Ghost of Sparta lol
Click to expand...
GoW is nowhere near as bad as this, and we don't even accept WoG that contradicts the source material half the time.

WoG as a whole is not disallowed. WoG that effectively reaffirms what already exists in-game is perfectly fine to use, as long as the person asking the questions isn't doing it in a leading manner.

Not like it matters, we finna remove a ton of 'em soon because Ragnarok and Valhalla did our job for us
 
Planck69 said:
Presumably, yeah. Granted, multiple people have held the reigns of the series since then, to my understanding and they normally wouldn't be any less valid, barring major contradiction.
Click to expand...
Thats majorily only issue i had with the thread since beginning. Since anything else being removed is non issue, given i stopped using WOG for profile scan purpose since long.
Reiner04 said:
I am saying that it is main and one of the important arguement in the thread and clearly not strawmanning. If the creators statement regarding the canonicity would still be applicable i would have had no issue with the thread itself.
Click to expand...
 
KLOL506 said:
GoW is nowhere near as bad as this, and we don't even accept WoG that contradicts the source material half the time.

WoG as a whole is not disallowed. WoG that effectively reaffirms what already exists in-game is perfectly fine to use, as long as the person asking the questions isn't doing it in a leading manner.

Not like it matters, we finna remove a ton of 'em soon because Ragnarok and Valhalla did our job for us
Click to expand...
I'm aware, I scale GoW myself off-site where WoG is used such as from Cory Barlog; I'm talking about using contradictory WoG sources such as Bruno. Whoever uses him as a source in big 2026 is a madman and same thing with Duncan Rouleau for Ben 10 who is also contradictory at times
 
Reiner04 said:
Can you all also clarify your stance on this part too? Considering this thread is already accepted, clarification is only thing thats needed.
Click to expand...
In my view I didn't see any evidence that we were using leading questions as evidence for tiering and while one major show runner gave a "Show only" canon quote, I don't think his view overwrites CN's ownership over the show and canon material licensed by CN is also canon.

The only thing I really get behind is that the justifications for these powers come from multiple sources with WoG being one of them, but they only use WoG. Instead they should be rewritten to include all relevant sources.
 
Given there are different opinions on the OP, what exactly is the final summary, like what should be done? Can someone sum it up?
 
Qawsedf234 said:
In my view I didn't see any evidence that we were using leading questions as evidence for tiering and while one major show runner gave a "Show only" canon quote, I don't think his view overwrites CN's ownership over the show and canon material licensed by CN is also canon.

The only thing I really get behind is that the justifications for these powers come from multiple sources with WoG being one of them, but they only use WoG. Instead they should be rewritten to include all relevant sources.
Click to expand...
I also thought to clarify it when KLOL brought up that other verses do not use contradicted WOG and WOGs that arent supported in the verse (since Ben 10 does not use them too) but since this thread already seemed largely accepted, i thought to only get clarification on relevant things should be priority to not get the verse into mess in future incase of canonicity.
 
Hellformer said:
Given there are different opinions on the OP, what exactly is the final summary, like what should be done? Can someone sum it up?
Click to expand...
First we need to get clarification on stance that each staff has here regarding every aspects of WOG statement. Since my question and responses to it makes it clear that they differ.
 
If someone says we don't use any of that twitter WoG shit one more time ong
Like there's links IN THE OP where profiles ON WIKI have links as justifications and the justifications link to EXCLUSIVELY said sus wogs.

Like this is just not true why are we saying we don't?
 
Chariot190 said:
If someone says we don't use any of that twitter WoG shit one more time ong
Like there's links IN THE OP where profiles ON WIKI have links as justifications and the justifications link to EXCLUSIVELY said sus wogs.

Like this is just not true why are we saying we don't?
Click to expand...
Good question 🗿 (Planning smth big B4 I got a notifications 🥀)
 
Qawsedf234 said:
In my view I didn't see any evidence that we were using leading questions as evidence for tiering and while one major show runner gave a "Show only" canon quote, I don't think his view overwrites CN's ownership over the show and canon material licensed by CN is also canon.

The only thing I really get behind is that the justifications for these powers come from multiple sources with WoG being one of them, but they only use WoG. Instead they should be rewritten to include all relevant sources.
Click to expand...
Firestorm808 said:
My stance is revising the descriptions to include the source depiction with the supplementary material.
Click to expand...
"WoG" - An abbreviation for "Word of God." It represents Author, or editorial, statements about a certain franchise, and/or its characters. However, take note that if this heavily contradicts, rather than complements, reliable in-story statements or feats, we tend to disregard them.
Click to expand...
@Dalesean027
@KingTempest
@Planck69
@Emirp sumitpo
@Reiner04
@Damage3245
@Vietthai96

Is the proposal detailed here to revise the justifications to include the source depiction with the supplementary material agreeable?
 
Last edited:
Chariot190 said:
If someone says we don't use any of that twitter WoG shit one more time ong
Like there's links IN THE OP where profiles ON WIKI have links as justifications and the justifications link to EXCLUSIVELY said sus wogs.

Like this is just not true why are we saying we don't?
Click to expand...
Reiner04 said:
I don't think WOGs are the sole reason for which these things were added in the profile. For instance, here in this thread where Universe and Nullvoid being High 3-A was accepted includes blatant statements from novel as well authors as well as show itself. But in the profile only one statement was added which is of Author. So while in the threads there has been shown support for the statements made by author in different medias, in the profile editor decided to post only one scan, which i feel is more of a editing issue not a evaluating issue.
Click to expand...
I did explained it js one page before and as i and Firestorm has stated, we do not accept any WOG which does not have any support from the show which seems to be general unspoken rule regarding every WOG in every verse and i have stated it many times within CRTs. If the members did not include the supportive context or statement from the show then it is editing issue. And if some might have been accepted by any chance, then it is evaluation issue than can be resolved w/o discussion rule. Ben 10 profiles are here since too long and not everyone is aware of each scan or things that were added or accepted previously.
 
Reiner04 said:
we do not accept any WOG which does not have any support from the show which seems to be general unspoken rule regarding every WOG
Click to expand...
Reliable WOG being supplementary to the source material is part of the wiki's glossary for the term.
"WoG" - An abbreviation for "Word of God." It represents Author, or editorial, statements about a certain franchise, and/or its characters. However, take note that if this heavily contradicts, rather than complements, reliable in-story statements or feats, we tend to disregard them.
Click to expand...
 
Firestorm808 said:
Reliable WOG being supplementary to the source material is part of the wiki's glossary for the term.
Click to expand...
Well nvm this is indeed general rule and in my presence and yours, no crt has ever been accepted based on WOG statement only. Only see editing issue that users did not include the show scans in the profiles and If some crt indeed passed solely based off wog then it will be evaluation issue.
 
Reiner04 said:
I did explained it js one page before and as i and Firestorm has stated, we do not accept any WOG which does not have any support from the show which seems to be general unspoken rule regarding every WOG in every verse and i have stated it many times within CRTs. If the members did not include the supportive context or statement from the show then it is editing issue. And if some might have been accepted by any chance, then it is evaluation issue than can be resolved w/o discussion rule. Ben 10 profiles are here since too long and not everyone is aware of each scan or things that were added or accepted previously.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what you yourself personally do if it's on the pages anyway.
Saying it isn't on our pages, is wrong, it is, saying it isn't is factually incorrect, misleads, spreads misinfo, and makes and skews potential votes and opinions because of it.
This shouldn't even need to be pointed out, because OP linked dozens of examples.

But hell I'll show a single example myself if need.

"Note: Slapback with enough duplication can become as dense as a black hole, Even a single Slapback clone weights around a billion pounds, The most clones he has ever produced on screen are eight."

The profile says his density slop as being on par with a black hole, not because of anything in the show, there's zero justification or scans linking back to the main canon for this, but because of a twitter statement that doesn't even flatout say "yeah" just "eh **** it maybe?".

A billion pounds and a standard black hole are incomprehensibly far apart.
Let's say a billion pounds assuming that part of the profile is legit, and a billion clones (not EIGHT; his non NLF quantifiable cap). Obviously the question is asking about solar black holes, the general minimum threshold for them is around commonly-cited about 3 solar masses.
1 solar mass is like 1.9885e30kg.
So we looking at around 5.9655e30kg.
A billion billion pounds is about 4.5359e17kg.
5.9655e30 / 4.5359e17 = 1.315e13.

That's a difference of 13 TRILLION times.

All off a WoG leading X statement that doesn't even say it objectively.

And there's a slew of shit like that on the profiles. If you're going to argue it, actually argue it, don't just say you personally don't do it even though this is very much an actual issue plaguing dozens of the profiles.

Edit: For record with 8 clones which is all that should be used is a gap of
1.64 sextillion times smaller (the planet weighs about 6 sextillion tons for example, the difference is about that of a car to a PLANET).
Edit 2: Someone mentioned atoms, assuming a human sized mass split down to its component atoms and each atom weighed a billion pounds, that'd STILL be almost a million times LESS than a black hole.
 
Last edited:
Chariot190 said:
It doesn't matter what you yourself personally do if it's on the pages anyway.
Saying it isn't on our pages, is wrong, it is, saying it isn't is factually incorrect, misleads, spreads misinfo, and makes and skews potential votes and opinions because of it.
This shouldn't even need to be pointed out, because OP linked dozens of examples.

But hell I'll show a single example myself if need.

"Note: Slapback with enough duplication can become as dense as a black hole, Even a single Slapback clone weights around a billion pounds, The most clones he has ever produced on screen are eight."

The profile says his density slop as being on par with a black hole, not because of anything in the show, there's zero justification or scans linking back to the main canon for this, but because of a twitter statement that doesn't even flatout say "yeah" just "eh **** it maybe?".

A billion pounds and a standard black hole are incomprehensibly far apart.
Let's say a billion pounds assuming that part of the profile is legit, and a billion clones (not EIGHT; his non NLF quantifiable cap). Obviously the question is asking about solar black holes, the general minimum threshold for them is around commonly-cited about 3 solar masses.
1 solar mass is like 1.9885e30kg.
So we looking at around 5.9655e30kg.
A billion billion pounds is about 4.5359e17kg.
5.9655e30 / 4.5359e17 = 1.315e13.

That's a difference of 13 TRILLION times.

All off a WoG leading X statement that doesn't even say it objectively.

And there's a slew of shit like that on the profiles. If you're going to argue it, actually argue it, don't just say you personally don't do it even though this is very much an actual issue plaguing dozens of the profiles.

Edit: For record with 8 clones which is all that should be used is a gap of
1.64 sextillion times smaller (the planet weighs about 6 sextillion tons for example, the difference is about that of a car to a PLANET).
Click to expand...
That's not in our jurisdiction, the Reboot is threated as a different franchise.

Quote Ben Prime examples, please
 
GeneralSol16 said:
That's not in our jurisdiction, the Reboot is threated as a different franchise.

Quote Ben Prime examples, please
Click to expand...
It's on the profile, this thread covers all of it. Whether you personally care for reboot, is not my problem.
And OP did quote prime examples, I personally just picked one where basic math showed the ludicrousity of this practice.

This isn't a rebuttal, this isn't even saying I'm wrong, it's you saying you personally don't like the example, which is special pleading and not my concern.
 
Chariot190 said:
It doesn't matter what you yourself personally do if it's on the pages anyway.
Saying it isn't on our pages, is wrong, it is, saying it isn't is factually incorrect, misleads, spreads misinfo, and makes and skews potential votes and opinions because of it.
This shouldn't even need to be pointed out, because OP linked dozens of examples.

But hell I'll show a single example myself if need.

"Note: Slapback with enough duplication can become as dense as a black hole, Even a single Slapback clone weights around a billion pounds, The most clones he has ever produced on screen are eight."

The profile says his density slop as being on par with a black hole, not because of anything in the show, there's zero justification or scans linking back to the main canon for this, but because of a twitter statement that doesn't even flatout say "yeah" just "eh **** it maybe?".

A billion pounds and a standard black hole are incomprehensibly far apart.
Let's say a billion pounds assuming that part of the profile is legit, and a billion clones (not EIGHT; his non NLF quantifiable cap). Obviously the question is asking about solar black holes, the general minimum threshold for them is around commonly-cited about 3 solar masses.
1 solar mass is like 1.9885e30kg.
So we looking at around 5.9655e30kg.
A billion billion pounds is about 4.5359e17kg.
5.9655e30 / 4.5359e17 = 1.315e13.

That's a difference of 13 TRILLION times.

All off a WoG leading X statement that doesn't even say it objectively.

And there's a slew of shit like that on the profiles. If you're going to argue it, actually argue it, don't just say you personally don't do it even though this is very much an actual issue plaguing dozens of the profiles.

Edit: For record with 8 clones which is all that should be used is a gap of
1.64 sextillion times smaller (the planet weighs about 6 sextillion tons for example, the difference is about that of a car to a PLANET).
Click to expand...
He has never shown any limit to how much cloned he can make.

and he also has never shown any limits to how much dense he can get.

So this is not even used for his durability it was just added in the notes.

but if it is creating that big of an issue then just simply write there is "no known limit to how much he can clone or get dense"
 
DemonicDude said:
He has never shown any limit to how much cloned he can make.
Click to expand...
No Limit Fallacy

DemonicDude said:
and he also has never shown any limits to how much dense he can get.
Click to expand...
No Limit Fallacy

DemonicDude said:
So this is not even used for his durability it was just added in the notes.

but if it is creating that big of an issue then just simply write there is "no no limit to how much he can clone or get dense
Click to expand...
This is first off, just a No Limit Fallacy and second off regardless the fact such a flimsy thing was even on the profile in the first place is the issue.

There is no need to replace this already flimsy note with what amounts to a no limit Fallacy without value
 
AmonInChains said:
I want to point that even evidence that was noted as "Supplementary Information" by Supporters are just blatant Powerscaling questions.
Click to expand...
That is the issue I have been talking about. Users here seem to have used 'Word of God' (WOG) statements rather than using the in-universe statement of the Forge of Creation being 'out of sync with all time.' If AX had ever used that for tiering purposes, he would never have been Tier 3. It need some clean up thread like WOG having recently.
 
Sonoftanavast9 said:
No Limit Fallacy


No Limit Fallacy


This is first off, just a No Limit Fallacy and second off regardless the fact such a flimsy thing was even on the profile in the first place is the issue.

There is no need to replace this already flimsy note with what amounts to a no limit Fallacy without value
Click to expand...

okay then I would like to have an opinion of the classic Ben 10 fans here.
The reason why it was added is because there is another character in Ben 10 classic show and he is able to make as many clones as he want.

so I guess that character will also be limited to the maximum amount of clones he has shown on the screen of our television.

I am talking about ditto.
vsbattles.fandom.com

Ditto (Ben 10)

Ditto is the Omnitrix's DNA sample of a Splixson from the planet Hathor. Tier: 10-B | 4-B Key: Original Series & Omniverse Flashbacks | Omniverse Name: Ditto Origin: Ben 10 Gender: Male Age: Unknown Classification: Alien, Splixson Powers and Abilities: Superhuman Physical Characteristics...
vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com
Ditto profile says
 
Reiner04 said:
That is the issue I have been talking about. Users here seem to have used 'Word of God' (WOG) statements rather than using the in-universe statement of the Forge of Creation being 'out of sync with all time.' If AX had ever used that for tiering purposes, he would never have been Tier 3. It need some clean up thread like WOG having recently.
Click to expand...
Sure that's nice but the reason the used the WOG is very obvious...

It's because being "out of sync with all of time" is more or less meaningless beyond maybe granting Time Paradox resistant acausality while the intended ability they added was instead Beyond Dimensional Existence.

The actual in universe statement is largely worthless in an attempt to grant Alien X Beyond Dimension Existence while the WOG isn't.
 
Chariot190 said:
It doesn't matter what you yourself personally do if it's on the pages anyway.
Click to expand...
I can only speak for evaluations under my supervision, if someone else accepted that or created the profile with that WOG intact, i can't do anything about it. Evaluations needs to be done on case by case basis regarding WOG and those who accepting it needs to be careful regarding what they are accepting. We have rules regarding QOG for every verse for a reason.
 
DemonicDude said:
He has never shown any limit to how much cloned he can make.

and he also has never shown any limits to how much dense he can get.

So this is not even used for his durability it was just added in the notes.

but if it is creating that big of an issue then just simply write there is "no no limit to how much he can clone or get dense"
Click to expand...
NLF to the highest degree. You use what they do or within reason.
You are effectively, in real time, despite only showing a total of 8 clones at all, saying that it's fine to assume he can do 13.15 sextillion clones because that's how many he'd need to rival a standard black hole.
That's 13,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 to the confirmed 8.

That is the equivalent in terms of volume to about a (assuming humanish volume/space per clone) of the actual planet.
As in he would need to make so many clones that if you compressed them all together, it'd be about the size of the earth almost (and I do mean almost, only a few percent away).

And lad, that was one example, the point was stuff like that is all across the profiles.
 
Chariot190 said:
NLF to the highest degree. You use what they do or within reason.
You are effectively, in real time, despite only showing a total of 8 clones at all, saying that it's fine to assume he can do 13.15 sextillion clones because that's how many he'd need to rival a standard black hole.
That's 13,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 to the confirmed 8.

That is the equivalent in terms of volume to about a (assuming humanish volume/space per clone) of the actual planet.
As in he would need to make so many clones that if you compressed them all together, it'd be about the size of the earth almost (and I do mean almost, only a few percent away).

And lad, that was one example, the point was stuff like that is all across the profiles.
Click to expand...

okay. The reason why it was added is because another character previously already had that and his profile was created several years ago.
it is a classic continuity character.

DemonicDude said:
okay then I would like to have an opinion of the classic Ben 10 fans here.
The reason why it was added is because there is another character in Ben 10 classic show and he is able to make as many clones as he want.

so I guess that character will also be limited to the maximum amount of clones he has shown on the screen of our television.

I am talking about ditto.
vsbattles.fandom.com

Ditto (Ben 10)

Ditto is the Omnitrix's DNA sample of a Splixson from the planet Hathor. Tier: 10-B | 4-B Key: Original Series & Omniverse Flashbacks | Omniverse Name: Ditto Origin: Ben 10 Gender: Male Age: Unknown Classification: Alien, Splixson Powers and Abilities: Superhuman Physical Characteristics...
vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com
Ditto profile says
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Reiner04
  • Locked
Ben 10: Cleansing of WOG part 1
2
Replies
78
Views
5K
Reiner04
Reiner04
StarShooter80
  • Locked
Ben 10: Reboot Verse Page + Verse Navbox
Replies
24
Views
2K
StarShooter80
StarShooter80
DemonicDude
Ben 10 Classic Jetray Content Revision Thread
Replies
17
Views
922
DemonicDude
DemonicDude
Reiner04
  • Locked
Ben 10: Universe downgrade
2 3
Replies
81
Views
7K
Reiner04
Reiner04
Lonkitt
  • Locked
Ben 10: Removing Vilgax Attacks and Cosmic Destruction from Mainline Canon [ACCEPTED]
3 4 5
Replies
185
Views
13K
Dereck03
Dereck03
Back
Top