SuperMarioGamers3
He/Him- 252
- 270
- Thread starter
- #81
Jokes aside, it's gonna take me a hot minute (probably tomorrow) to respond due to some irl stuff.
-
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.
Super Mario Bros: The Ultimate 3-A (and above!) CRT
- Thread starter SuperMarioGamers3
- Start date
- Status
- 19,732
- 21,192
Lad, I ain't even saying all of it is wrong.
The issue here atm is using scans that literally aren't allowed as support (plus a few other things but that's the current big one).
Argue what you want but do it with legitimate evidence.
Like technically speaking I have no issue with endless Fortress, though not for the reason given here.
But correct evidence matters given it needs to be linked on profile regardless of conclusion.
- 7,324
- 2,624
Tbh this probably warrants a discussion on Prima guide usage in general, for other series as well.
SuperMarioGamers3
He/Him- 252
- 270
- Thread starter
- #85
Don't those have developer interviews?
SuperMarioGamers3
He/Him- 252
- 270
- Thread starter
- #86
I may be misremembering, but the Galaxy one did have one with Koizumi... right?
- 2,979
- 1,983
There should likely be a staff thread for that.
- 1,170
- 967
I want to address this point directly before it misleads anyone reading the thread.
First, the “lore” being referenced here, It comes from the UK Nintendo website, and the relevant text reads:
“Whoever designed this course must have had a lot of time on their hands. Race through the workings on an enormous clock as you swerve past swinging pendulums the size of cars and dodge giant grinding gears. Remember: every second counts.”
Second, this passage is explicitly describing the course design, not the realm itself. and is clearly about the obstacles and layout, not world creation.
Third, the phrasing is an obvious time-themed pun. “A lot of time on their hands” and “every second counts” are standard wordplay for a clock-based stage. Treating this as literal lore about the creator of the world is a category mistake.
Finally, and this is the most important point, if UK / European Nintendo website descriptions are being treated as valid evidentiary sources here, then consistency matters. Those same regional materials are also where a universal Black Jewel statement originates. You cannot selectively dismiss European Nintendo material as “non authoritative flavor text” in one case while appealing to it as meaningful lore in another. Either those sources are admissible as supplementary evidence, or they aren’t.
- 19,732
- 21,192
I legitimately can't believe someone fell for it.
Ignoring your "1" and "2" which is simply denial because you don't like the implications (it being written thematically is not a rebuttal or argument against the text), neither change what it actually says.
Notice how your ultimate conclusion basically amounted to "nuh uh it's NOT the og it doesn't count!".
That is exactly my point and just proved everything I've been saying.
Thank you for proving the hypocrisy here by accident.
Ignoring Black Jewel because I don't give a shit I haven't been arguing that, notice how you're arguing "consistency", and double standards?
Yeah you're right it isn't in the original Japanese, so how do we know if it was parsed, came from internal docs, etc.? Mayhaps not every lil line of flavor is canon and has been vetted and we should stick to the primary source instead of trying to cobble together some bastardized composite just because it's been put out by a brand?
In such a case, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You want Eng lines that were approved?
Ok; there's numerous lines that contradict the stance pushed here directly contradicting world creation by Bowser.
You don't like those because it's some blurb? Ok; then stick to primary canon.
It's obvious you fall into the second there so I'd assume I can expect you to agree that unless we have direct proof a line is canon to simply stick with what we know for a fact?
- 2,896
- 3,342
i largely agree on everything regarding the translation stuff
you're taking a regular sentence and metaphorically beating it with a hammer and swapping out english words until it says something more like what you want it to say instead of just reading it as it is (being "trying to make a kingdom/land/country of monsters")
the としています is the nail in the coffin because that + the specific form of つくる used is for attempting to do something, which very much implies bowser has not already done so
- 1,170
- 967
"Fell for it"
Wow Chariot. That might’ve worked if your reply wasn’t stacked with misrepresentation.
You completely ignored my first two points and dismissed them as “denial.” That’s not an argument my dude, it’s laziness. Worse, literàlly mind readng and poisoning the well. Like, I wasn’t rejecting evidence, I was just doing contextual analysis, which is exactly how we evaluate text on the wiki. You do this yourself all the time when you classify things as hyperbole, game design, or flavor.Rejecting the method only when it hurts your conclusion is special pleading SMH.
da Tick tock Clock description is obvious wordplay. It’s a clock stage. “A lot of time on their hands” and “every second counts” are puns, and the paragraph is describing course design and obstacles, not the origin of a realm. Treating that as literal creation origin without justification is a category error.
Worse, your reading clashes with Mario 64 itself. The level’s behavior changes depending on the hour you enter the clock(From Mario wiki: Entering when the minute hand is nearest "12" makes everything stop, entering near "3" makes everything move slowly, entering near "6" makes everything move randomly and change speeds frequently, and entering near "9" makes everything move quickly.)That directly ties the realm to the clock mechanisme and power stars. It’s not some unrelated structure designed by a literal who in a literal what place. Ignoring that is just selective evidence.
Now this part:
“nuh uh it’s NOT the og it doesn’t count!”
That’s a strawman. Bro, I never said “it doesn’t count.” Not once. I pointed out where the statement comes from and what kind of text it is. That’s it.Source analysis is not dismissal, it’s step one of evaluating evidentiary weight (but that doesn't even matter, like it was just a mention). Reframing that as me rejecting canon is false accusation, nice try tho.
Writing a wall of text to recast my position into something easier to attack doesn’t make your case stronger. It just makes it dishonestn. You don’t get to accuse someone of hypocrisy by first inventing a position they never held.
- 1,170
- 967
Anyway, I’m going to drop this specific point for now and address the whole thing properly later. I’m on the bus at the moment, so typing and structuring a full response is honestly a pain 
- 19,732
- 21,192
Hey you outted the practice, not my fault.
It is what it is. There is no "maybe this, maybe that" here, you follow the rules, end of.
You are not doing that though, you're cherry picking, making excuses when they don't fit your stance, and still pushing for said stance even against contradictory evidence that exists if you follow the same standards and apply it to both, all while said standards don't actually do what you need it do.
Alas, name one "misrepresentation" without swapping in your preferred interpretation as if that automatically becomes truth. Like it or not, there's an actual dichotomy here for once, you can't have your cake and eat it too, yet that's effectively all anyone here has been trying to do.
Of course, irrelevant points do be irrelevant.
I do not have time to coddle this CRT anymore or your points because you do not like what it says.
It is an excuse, you are denying it over trivial facets that don't change what it says. Well tough luck, it's not my burden.
Regardless, that's because they were denial dressed up as "analysis":
"It's just about design" is an assertion, not a demonstration.
"It's puns" is a vibe, not a rebuttal.
Saying "context" doesn't magically nullify what the sentence implies, it could be loaded with puns and designs, yet that doesn't change that it very clearly states something incompatible with the notion that TTC was conjured by Bowser by means of Power Star. A pun, idiom, or thematic framing doesn't invalidate a sentence, if it did, the vast majority of the evidence here would be thrown out by default.
But you want me to yap properly?
Fine.
I'm not going to trim, every single point from here on out in full will be replied to the same way, in full, every time, no matter what; say the same thing, get the same answer, once or fifty times a post, I do not care.
It was moreso not cluttering the thread via systematically ripping it apart because you don't have a proper argument that doesn't contradict your own stance at the same time and the excuses you gave didn't actually prove it invalid.
Surely I figured people would be mad if I hit you if an essay explaining it, but damn if I do, damned if I don't.
All the same. The lazy move is repeating "pun" three times and then saying you've done textual work, you have not, the implications undermine your claim so you're trying to frame framing as some sort of dismissal to the claim. Yet a claim can be layered with those things and still be true, they do not invalidate the content.
Anyway people can blame you now if they want to complain about post length.
I didn't say a thing actually, I put it there, whether or not someone would argue themselves into a corner I had no say in, honestly I didn't think anyone would tbh I'm kind of surprised you did so to begin with.
That's on you for proving the problem and outting yourself, that is not my fault.
Calling it "poisoning the well" every time someone points out the function and consequence of an argument is a case of post hoc conjecture, cherry picking, and an ironic twist of double standards, is a you problem.
Explaining what your reasoning does isn't mind reading. It's, ironically, analysis.
Unless you mean the fact I called it denial is poisoning the well? Is that not what it is though?
You're denying it, but more importantly, the methods you used to do so slip into double standards or are outright irrelevant to proving invalidity. Either or, it makes it not something I should not need to reply to in full, as the former proves my very point and the latter straight up didn't matter.
Anyway, you can not hold both stances simultaneously without proof that has yet to be provided, prove the things you're using is strict canon, or statements like that are fine to use against.
This is wordplay, and nothing more.
"Contextual analysis" is simply you unjustifiably downgrading evidence while pretending you didn't.
You can call it whatever you want; the output of your claim is the same: you want the line to stop carrying the implication it carries and are doing so by harping on facets that don't actually change what it's saying.
And honestly, I would prefer you did reject it, that's my actual point with that one.
And the wiki also requires CONSISTENCY and SOURCE WEIGHT, which is the part you're trying to dodge.
It ALSO says to NOT USE 90% of the scans that are being argued here.
No NA translation unless it replaces the original, no guides unless there's direct internal overview and citations.
Yet, here we are, having this ENTIRE conversation, because people keep wanting to use an English only line that says effectively the exact opposite of the Japanese equivalent to justify the existence of the feat as a whole despite our adaption rules, while using non-canon or vetted guide scans to then inflate said non-existent feat even further.
You want to talk about what we do on the wiki and use that as a shield?
Then be consistent and actually follow our rules for once.
I do in fact do it all the time, yet I don't go "oh damn it has wordplay, I guess the message must be voided" unless it has direct contradictory backing to prove the wordplay is hyperbole or not face-value. If I were to do that, I'd be calling out that endless sky statement, among others, because they also have thematic framing that could be used to say it's just fluff, yet I am not.
Any arguments against them I do actually does analyze the greater scope, context, and so forth, like where do they take place, do we have corroborating and contradictory examples of the same claims, is there examples of the same proven wrong objectively, etc. you did not do that.
Huge difference: I don't selectively invoke "hyperbole/flavor" only when it threatens my conclusion, then treat similar blurbs as hard support elsewhere, I even personally agree with two of the examples due to said cross analysis.
That's YOUR double standard and one you effectively boxed yourself into admitting via your arguments and quotation of said standards.
But you wanna talk about special pleading?
Ignoring how you tried to pin that on me; this is where your entire post collapses.
To explain to those who don't know, special pleading is when you apply a rule everywhere except the one place it would hurt you, then you invent a "reason" that just so happens to apply perfectly onto your preferred conclusion.
That's what you are doing, not me (I'm fine with ignoring the TTC line, in so far that people actually follow the rules and stop using other Eng lines as well as the foundation of a point).
Here’s the major difference lad:
1. What I’m doing is one standard (the site's), applied universally
My stance is simple and consistent:
Regional / marketing blurbs (EU site copy, NA blurbs, etc.) do not become canon unless explicitly noted.
If someone wants to use them (like "Bowser created painting world"), they need direct corroboration from primary material, sourced from internal docs, or the like, not vibe slop.
So when I point out that a EU blurb assigns agency/design language that contradicts a specific notion that also only exists via Eng lines, I'm not saying "therefore it’s 100% canon world origin".
I'm saying: this is exactly why treating these blurbs as vetted lore is absurd, inconsistent, and if you do go this route, there's numerous conflicting evidence that ruins the idea being pushed anyway.
That’s not special pleading. That’s the opposite: it’s enforcing a single evidentiary rule, that being stick to the Japanese unless proven.
2. What you are doing is just selective downgrading (actual special pleading)
You want two incompatible privileges at the same time here and it's not subtle:
A: "These regional Nintendo materials count as supplementary evidence when they support a claim I like".
And B: "These regional Nintendo materials are just punny flavor text when they threaten a claim I like".
And your "justification" for switching is not a real criterion like "this is contradicted by primary text" or "this is explicitly non-lore marketing".
Your justification is literally: "it's wordplay", while ignoring that pun aside, it's written from a in-universe framing.
Which is not a rule. It's a dodge.
Your method here is simply when a blurb aligns with your narrative you treat the phrasing as meaningful (the multiple guide statements, various descriptions of stages, etc.).
Yet when the blurb implies something inconvenient: suddenly the same format is "just puns" and "just obstacles"?
That's textbook special pleading: same category of source (ambiguously vetted non-primary material from outside sources), yet different standards based on desired outcome.
3. The irony: you accused me of "rejecting the method", but you’re the dude rejecting it
You say you're doing "contextual analysis". Fine. Then do actual analysis:
Show where the text contradicts itself.
Show where the text cannot be read as agency language.
Show primary material that forces a different reading (without slipping into the point I'm catching you in, that being the use of ambiguously vetted non-primary material from outside sources despite our rules but only sometimes).
You did none of that.
4. Your "special pleading" accusation doesn't work even on its own terms.
Your claim was: I reject contextual analysis only when it hurts me.
But I didn’t reject contextual analysis. I rejected the idea that "pun" overrides semantics.
A line can be thematic and still assert a designer, whom going by the description, evidently isn't Bowser. If you want to override that, you need a stronger reason than "lol it's a clock pun".
I'm not rejecting the method. I'm rejecting your misuse of it as if it means anything..
5. The point here, was a clean black-and-white here that you keep dodging
Either:
A. Regional blurbs are admissible lore support unless proven explicitly.
If you choose A, then you don't dismiss agency language as "just puns" whenever it's inconvenient. It counts the same way it counts elsewhere.
Or:
B. Regional blurbs don't mean shit unless proven.
If you choose B, then stop using NA-only or regional-only lines as evidence for world creation claims. Stick to primary canon.
You can pick A or B. What you can’t do is pick A when it helps you and B when it doesn't.
That picking-and-switching is what special pleading actually is.
Which is to say, yeah "special pleading" is the perfect term here. You just aimed it at the wrong dude.
This is just trying to metaphorically "win" by re-labeling dude, not by proving anything.
1. "It's wordplay" is irrelevant to what the sentence actually says.
Nobody is disputing it's time-themed. WHO CARES?
A sentence can be punny all it wants and still convey an actual claim.
Since when do we get to say "ruh roh pun detected" and then pretend the semantics don't exist?
Rhetorical; never.
2. You keep worming in a strawman: "literal creation origin"
I am not claiming this blurb reveals the metaphysics of the realm's birth, I legitimately do not care if TTC is an alt world or not. I'm not trying to pinpoint some cosmic origin for the place.
I'm using it for a narrower, cleaner point that you keep dodging:
If the text implies a designer/builder (whoever designed this course), in a context that goes directly against the premise of its creation argued here in this thread, then that directly cuts against the thread's opportunistic leap of "Bowser instantly magic'd the wholeass world into existence via a Power Star".
I don't need to prove who made it or how, I only need to point out the incompatibility with the Bowser-creation claim and that it was him.
To be more precise, I only need to show the sources you're leaning on are casual, inconsistent, and frequently imply things that contradict the argument here.
3. "Course design and obstacles, not realm origin" doesn't mean a thing.
You're acting like "course design" is some totally different category. But course design literally implies someone designed it and they say as much because they refer to them as a "who".
And that matters because the opposing argument in this thread is trying to treat these places like instant, Bowser conjurations. And linguistics, "this course", in question is literally just TTC.
Which thinking on it is a very much not infinite world space in MK8 but eh throw that in the pile ig.
Your line doesn't refute my use of it. It supports it:
If TTC is "designed" and in a situation that required some surplus of time to do so, then it's not "Bowser waved that shit into existence".
4. The real category error is yours: confusing "how it reads" with "what it says"
Calling it "wordplay", again, is about tone.
The actual sentence is about agency ("whoever designed this course probably took a long ass time").
Tone doesn't cancel content.
5. And no, it's not a "category error" to use it this way
A category error would be me saying:
"Because a pun exists, it's invalid therefore the universe was created on Tuesday by King Koops".
I ain't doing that.
I'm doing a basic, text-level inference:
A blurb describing a locale as designed by a 3rd party implies a designer.
It is framed in a way that dictates that the person who did so took some relevant length of time to do so.
That undermines using separate NA-only flavor lines to assert Bowser created the world instantly, especially when the primary JP material doesn't support that.
They cancel each other out, you can't use one but not the other. If you don't want one, you ignore both.
That's not a category error. That's denial, that the wording isn't convenient.
6. The thread's argument chain you seem to vet is the thing that's unjustified too
The CRT's claim is not "we don't know who designed it", if it was we wouldn't have a problem.
The thread's claim is "Bowser created these worlds instantly via Power Stars", based on NA-only phrasing that conflicts with JP framing of the same line.
THAT is the leap that needs justification.
You're trying to flip the burden here and it ain't slick:
You want me to prove metaphysical origin, when your side is making the stronger positive claim about Bowser world slop.
My point is literally the opposite: your evidence doesn't justify that leap, and other officially published blurbs frequently imply design/structure/agency in ways that don't point to Bowser. To take one is to take both. And if you take both yours is undercut.
"It's puns" doesn't make it non-evidence.
"It's obstacles" doesn't make agency irrelevant.
And calling it "category error" is you trying to avoid what the sentence straightforwardly implies.
No, it doesn't.
You're just asserting "clash" to make it sound like a refutation exists, this be like if I said water is wet and you said nuh uh the sky is blue.
A stage having a time-entry mechanic is not in conflict with it being designed/constructed, and it sure as hell is not proof of "Bowser instantly magic'd it into existence" as the alternative.
Also, you're dodging the actual dispute: this thread (atm) is about people using NA-only blurbs to claim Bowser created worlds. Nothing in Mario 64's TTC mechanics confirms that claim.
What Mario 64 actually shows, is a neutral showing that tells nothing.
Cool, true even. Still irrelevant.
How a stage behaves tells you NOTHING about who or how it was built, and NOTHING about whether it was created instantly by Bowser via a Power Star. Mechanics are not indication. Function is not origin.
You're doing a blatant non sequitur: "it has a clock mechanic" so "therefore your reading is wrong".
That doesn't follow my dude. It can have a time mechanic, yet be created outside of Bowser's inference, and a million other things. You need to prove it was him, not that it is wacky.
Using a fan wiki summary to posture about evidentiary standards is already weak, but even granting the mechanic which, well idk why I wouldn't, it's true? Like so self-evident I'm not sure why you think that's a point or being argued.
It still doesn't support your conclusion. It's just a description of speed states. You're padding the post with a neutral fact and pretending it's an argument.
Yuh huh. It is a clock stage. Everyone knows that. This establishes theme/function and ties it to the clock it takes place within. It does not establish who or what made it, and it def does not establish Bowser created it.
You keep swapping categories: you talk about mechanics, then you act like you've addressed the very point of contention. You haven't.
And this isn't slick. This is pure insertion. You just shoved the contested claim back in as if it were confirmed.
Nowhere does Mario 64 state that Tick Tock Clock exists because of Power Stars, or that its time behavior is powered by Power Stars. If it does, post THAT instead and maybe then you'd have a argument.
You just slapped "and power stars" onto a neutral mechanic that doesn't tell us anything to make it sound like the game itself supports the NA-only world-creation slop.
That's circular reasoning my dude:
1. You assume the NA-only blurb about creating worlds with a Power Star (as that's the only tie I can think of that exists, if not, post a canon other one).
2. Then ya declare "power stars" are tied to TTC.
3. Then use that to make the NA-only blurb seem supported.
You literally looped the conclusion into the premise.
This is rhetorical clowning ngl. Nobody said "unrelated". You're, ironically again, strawmanning a version of the opposing view so you can argue it when I never actually argued, contested, or supported that. Quite frankly I don't care who or what did it.
And "designed" does not require a named mf with a mailing address. It just implies agency/construction. Who or what doesn't matter, what does matter is that it conflicts with the notion that Bowser in particular did it.
Which is exactly why your "it's just obstacles" argument is absurd: it cuts against the thread's opportunistic leap to "instant Bowser conjuration".
Like I knew you were missing the point but come on now.
YOUR post is selective evidence plus dishonesty:
You cite a neutral gameplay mechanic as if it speaks to authorship (it doesn't).
You cite a fan wiki to sound authoritative.
You then squeeze in "and power stars" with zero canon support.
You call it "selective" when someone refuses to accept your extrapolated conjecture.
It isn't selective, it's showing how you can't have your cake and eat it too, i.e. calling out selective behavior.
If you want to argue Bowser created TTC with a Power Star, you need primary support for THAT. Not "the stage has a clock mechanic". Not "it feels consistent". Not "Mario wiki said shit".
Your paragraph is fluff, hence the original dismissal.
This is the most dishonest kind of dodge known to man: pretending that because you didn't type the exact sentence "it doesn't count" and thus you didn't do the thing.
You absolutely did. Your whole move was:
"It's EU website"
"It's puns"
"It's about obstacles"
"Category error"
That is not neutral source analysis. That's you trying to strip the line of any evidentiary force so it can't be used against the narrative you want to protect while simultaneously missing the point and irony.
Call it weight, call it context, call it whatever the hell you want.
The function is the same: downgrade it until it's non-actionable regardless of subject matter and then turn around and not hold that standard elsewhere. That's dismissal and worse even in practice.
And here's the part you kind of missed: my criticism was never "you are rejecting canon".
My criticism is that you AREN'T rejecting it when you should, and you're only half-rejecting things opportunistically.
You want the benefits of secondary/regional English blurbs without actually being consistent about it, ergo cherry picking.
No, it wasn't "that's it". You didn't just label the source. You made an argument about interpretation and admissibility:
You asserted it's not about origin.
You asserted it's just wordplay.
You asserted it's a category error to read it literally.
You framed that because it's EU website (your leading point even) it means less effectively (while still supporting the very same practice elsewhere).
Those are not passive observations. Those are attempts to control what the text is allowed to mean so it can't hurt the shit you're defending.
Yes. And here's the problem: you keep using "evidentiary weight" as a one-way road lad.
When the blurbs support a biggaton claim ("Bowser created worlds", "universal Black Jewel", etc.), suddenly the same class of regional/English marketing text becomes "supplementary evidence" and everyone needs to "be consistent" about accepting it?
Yet don't pay heed to those other lines about TTC, or even Bob-omb that say Bowser didn't create them really, he's just turning residents into monsters or practices that contradict what we actually do know he did?
There's a very real double standard going on, and it isn't me here doing it.
When the blurbs imply agency/design language that doesn't point to Bowser, suddenly it's puns and category error"?
That's the cherry-pick. That's the hypocrisy. That's the special pleading.
Don't act like you're doing the wiki's method either, if you were we wouldn't even be having this conversation because you'd be sticking to the Japanese (and ig the perfect guide) as your evidence here. The wiki's method is: this shit ain't canon with the evidence given, need far more direct proof and evidence not just approval. Yet ya'll set a different standard, then carve exceptions whenever the conclusion gets uncomfortable, contradictory, or impossible to reconcile.
Yeah no. If it "didn't matter", you wouldn't have written an attempt trying to neutralize it.
This is that exact sort of rhetorical pattern where one spends a full paragraph (trying) to undercut a point, then pretend it was trivial so nobody calls you on the motive there.
No. It mattered, because it undermines the tactic and practice used in this thread: building world-creation claims on NA-only blurbs and then handwaving away any other English/regional material that implies something else.
Again: you're fighting a
My point is that you should be rejecting these blurbs as hard evidence in the first place if you care about canon, because they're inconsistent across regions and they clash with the primary JP framing people are trying to override and more importantly aren't vetted, confirmed, or drawn from known canonical sources thus our rules state: "To bad".
Your I'm not rejecting it stance is the exact problem even, because it lets you do this:
A. Treat non-JP English blurbs as admissible when they prop up the Bowser-created-worlds narrative slop.
B. Yet refuse to let other non-JP blurbs be used to undercut it.
C. While pretending you're not cherry-picking because you used the word "weight" or some shit (which is kind of the point, none of the Eng stuff has weight to it, they're all equally non-canon fluff until proven).
That's not principled standards man, that is narrative-protection.
So like it or not, here's the black-and-white you keep tap-dancing around:
Either:
A. These regional/marketing English blurbs aren't provably canon and should not be used to establish hard claims like "Bowser created worlds with a Power Star" (especially when JP doesn't support it and somewhat undercuts it).
Or:
B. They're admissible supplementary evidence, in which case you don't get to dismiss contradictory examples the moment it becomes inconvenient.
Pick one. Apply it universally. Your refusal to do that is exactly why the "I never said it doesn't count" defense is empty af: you're trying to avoid the practical consequence of your argument while still getting the outcome of it.
So yeah, I stand by exactly what I said, you're effectively going "nuh uh that one don't count!", for the same reasons that apply to the very points you support elsewhere, and your attempt to make it look as if there's more going into your reasoning doesn't work because it is quite literally just denial and all of the above and doesn't actually rebuke the claim.
Saying wall of text, is, ironically, given your prior poisoning the well claim, is just you trying to poison the reader against actually following the logic. If the logic is wrong, refute it. Calling it long is not a rebuttal, it's an admission you don't want to engage with the substance.
Also, you literally wrote a wall of text yourself. So the complaint is either hypocritical or mayhaps even a cover for "I can't answer this", even worse is that I AVOIDED WRITING A WALL OF TEXT, to the points that were irrelevant denial, and yet you complained I didn't write a wall of text breaking it down.
Damn if I do, damn if i don't, if ya'll want walls of text, that's exactly what you will get given ignoring clutter got me hit with the "nuh uh you didn't reply you lazy".
You don't get to say shit is dishonest as a substitute for demonstrating it.
Where is the lie? Quote the exact line, then show the contradiction?
You can't, because the dishonesty you're actually arguing about is that I stated the functional consequence of your argument out loud.
You tried to downgrade the EU blurb into non-actionable fluff via things that don't rebuke the claim and the fact it's EU, while simultaneously supporting and even arguing to some degree that dubious regional Nintendo material must be treated consistently while using such to support a NA/Regional only claim.
That is cherry-picking. Calling that out isn't dishonest, and showing it in function in real time is simply you outting yourself. It's accurate to what is occurring in this CRT.
I didn't invent anything, I wish I did tho tbh. I described what you did.
Here's the reality of the situation regardless of the exact words you type based on your actions:
You can say "I never said it doesn't count" all you want, but you executed the exact procedure used to make it not count in practice: label as regional, label as pun, label as non-lore, then declare the opposing reading a "category error".
That's not a neutral act. It's a targeted double standard downgrade.
And the hypocrisy isn't about you secretly believing a sentence like "it doesn't count". It's about you wanting a double standard:
Regional/English material is "admissible supplementary evidence" when it supports the Bowser-created-worlds and given you mentioned Black Jewel, biggatons ig.
The moment similar material implies non-Bowser or undermines that position directly (this happens multiple times), it suddenly doesn't count.
That is not "inventing your position". That's describing exactly what is happening whether or not you put it into words.
If you want the simplest way to prove I'm inventing it, do this:
State a single clear standard for using non-JP regional blurbs in canon arguments, and apply it to BOTH:
1. The NA-only world-creation blurbs people like you are leaning on in this thread, and
2. Literally like the dozen contradictory lines.
The moment you adopt a consistent standard, your side loses the ability to cherry-pick whichever English line props up said narrative.
No matter how you go about it, "invented position" is just a dodge against what you were caught doing.
Your selective admissibility got exposed in plain language, it is what it is.
And before anyone, idc who, says "false dichotomy": no, this is not one.
A false dichotomy is when someone arbitrarily limits options that actually have meaningful third/fourth cases.
What I'm pointing out is a hard constraint imposed by YOUR own evidentiary practice and our very rules:
You cannot simultaneously treat the same class of sources (regional marketing blurbs / NA-only flavor) as usable to establish a positive claim when convenient, and then treat them as disposable when inconvenient, without providing an objective, non-outcome-based rule that cleanly separates the two.
If you think there is a third option, here it is in plain terms:
State ONE consistent standard that tells us when a non-JP regional blurb is admissible for canon/feats, and when it is not, and apply that same standard to BOTH:
1. The NA-only world-creation line being pushed in this thread, and other infinite like statements.
2. Every contradictory regional/English line people are trying to handwave away or ignore.
If you cannot do that, then you don't have a third option. You have ad hoc exceptions.
And ad hoc exceptions are just cherry-picking with extra steps. In such a case, we use only hard canon like the Japanese like we should be doing anyway.
So just saying it now, not saying anyone would but you don't get to call it a false dichotomy while refusing to propose a consistent rule.
Until one presents that rule and applies it universally, with said rule also qualifying for canon standards on this wiki, the only honest conclusion is that the argument being pushed here is not supported under any coherent evidentiary framework.
And as such, you shouldn't even be arguing this against me, you should be arguing against the use of these blurbs as a whole.
- 1,170
- 967
I’m going to cut through all of this and ask one simple question: prove that “the course” in that very UK text refers to the entire realm, and not just the race track itself. Because what’s actually happening is that you’re spending 3000+ of words on standards, cherry-picking accusations, and “you’re denying it” loops, but you never demonstrate that “whoever designed this course” means “whoever created this space/world.” That leap is assumed, not argued. (Honestly there are other interpretations of the text that could be grasped not just yours and mine, but let's not go that way)
“Course” literally means a racecourse or path, nothing in the wording inherently scales it up to world creation. So before we even argue whether it counts, you need to show your extrapolation is correct in the first place. Otherwise it’s just me asking you to justify a semantic jump.
And honestly, if “course” automatically means “entire realm,” are we supposed to believe Nintendo foreshadowed that the stage is secretly a DS kart racing course back in the 90s with "Mario Kart" in the entrance the whole time ? (Even tho Mario wasn't aware of it) Because that’s the level of reach this reading requires.
Last thing, because this also needs correcting: I’m not even basing my argument on the American version. My upcoming point does not rely on it at all. It may get mentioned later, but in a completely different context. Dropping the american scans is fine for now. So telling me to “follow your rules” as if I'm the one who built the entire thread on US scans is just a flat misread of what I’m doing.
Also, I’m not going to pretend I was perfectly coherent in every line, I wasn’t. I wasn’t fully focused, and if some parts came out messy or didn’t land cleanly, that’s on me. But that doesn’t justify responding with a massive essay full of false assumptions about my position. If the foundation you’re arguing against isn’t even the one I’m using, then most of that wall of text simply isn’t relevant.
And for what it’s worth, the overly aggressive tone is only going to waste your time, speaking from personal exprience. (I do get moody too ngl)
Last edited:
Galactidot
They/Them- 676
- 574
- 1,683
- 852
I think the mario kart stuff is pretty straightforward. idk why we arguing it lol
- 19,732
- 21,192
No. This is a goalpost shift built on a strawman lad.
I do not need to prove "course = entire metaphysical realm" because that is not the claim I am using it for, and I already said that. You are trying to force the debate into an artificially narrow semantic trap so you can dodge the actual point that started this whole exchange, that being: selective admissibility of non-JP / regional blurbs.
Even if "course" ONLY means the drivable track, the UK text still does what I cited it for:
It uses agency/design language ("whoever designed this course took 10ever").
It frames the thing being raced through as the result of deliberate design/work over time, which is incompatible with this thread's "Bowser instantly conjured this into existence via a Power Star" being treated as if it's established canon.
That's to say your "one simple question" is a new prerequisite introduced to avoid answering the standards question by narrowing the dispute into a semantic gate before you’ll address the point you already argued about by demanding something I never needed.
You keep repeating the same strawman dude: you want to pretend my argument is "designed = created the whole universe".
The standards discussion exists because YOU invoked standards first: you argued consistency of regional Nintendo material ("either admissible or not" - you). You opened that can. Now you're complaining I'm showing it? You can't have both.
And calling it a loop makes you look bad, when the loop in question is literally your behavior:
When a regional blurb helps a preferred conclusion, it's treated as meaningful.
When a regional blurb is inconvenient, it becomes "pun", "obstacles", "category error", "EU so not canon".
That is not your self proclaimed contextual analysis. That is selective downgrading.
Also, even under your preferred narrow reading (course = track), your own complaint collapses:
If it is "just track design copy", then it is even LESS suitable as a basis for world-creation or creator claims in the first place.
So you are accidentally reinforcing the exact standard I've been pushing: these blurbs are dubious marketing text, not canon feat foundations.
That's not how burden works here fyi.
You're making the positive claim (Bowser created TTC). I'm only required to show your support is unstable/inconsistent or contradicted.
The fact there's statements that make it dubious if you go NAT simply undermines your stance; a rebuttal doesn’t require me to identify the true creator; it only requires showing your attribution to Bowser isn’t established under your own standards, while you do need to prove it was him who created it instantly with a Power Star.
Cool dude. Then stop trying to scale other English-only marketing blurbs into uni creation feats.
The bigger semantic jump in this CRT is not mine. It's the thread's whole:
"NA-only line kind of implies Bowser made worlds with a Power Star so ig therefore Bowser created these as a world therefore we can slap "big world" interpretations on top and oh cool a uni lv feat".
That is the leap that needs justification.
You have not proven using the actual confirmed material that Bowser is the creator of these places, this hinges entirely on a eng only line that claims the opposite of the Japanese.
Every argument against why he HAD to because painting this or world that, is contradict explicitly or implicitly elsewhere in verse (Odyssey having paintings with the exact same effects only translocating to existing places is a obvious one), or even worse, in the same exact game there's a slew of caveats, examples we know AREN'T alt worlds acting the same as your alleged alt worlds, and so much more, multiple steps are being skipped here and you're acting like anyone has to prove anything when the claim itself hasn't even got off the ground yet?
And again: even if it is only a track, it still implies someone else not aligned with
"Bowser instantly magic'd that shit it into existence", and it definitely doesn't help you assign Bowser specifically.
But anyway. I would like to remind you that you're discussing Mario.
As in the verse and media that describes every single level and world as a course constantly.
Hey watch this:
Not even half the examples in the VERY GUIDE you're trying to use. Nice racetracks right?
I'm legitimately awestruck that you even tried to pull that semantic on me.
But we don't even need guides, screw the Nintendo Power:
Here's the manual. They're called courses and course, because of course they are, that’s the franchise’s standard term for stages and always had been.
And it isn't even just 64,
- Super Mario 64
- Super Mario 64 DS
- Super Mario 3D World + Bowser’s Fury
- Super Mario Maker (Wii U)
- Super Mario Maker 2
- Super Mario Bros. Wonder
- Super Mario 3D Land
- New Super Mario Bros. U
- New Super Mario Bros. (DS)
- New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe
- New Super Mario Bros. Wii
- Super Mario Run
- New Super Mario Bros. 2
Like come tf dude, you quoted a dictionary as if the very thing you quoted not only encompasses other meanings (paths, locales, Point A to Point B's, etc.), but also the very franchise you're arguing about doesn't use that as a stock term for literally everything?
The burden isn't on me here, you want me to prove "course" can very explicitly refer not a race track?
Ok I just did, using YOUR evidence you're trying to use, for the EXACT same stage no less (see the end).
It is now your turn to prove that course explicitly means racetrack exclusively.
No. You're flipping the burden. You are trying to make me prove a maximal scope claim before you're willing to engage with the standards point, when your side hasn't proven its own maximal creator claim in the first place.
Also, you are pretending this is "before we argue whether it counts" when you already argued it shouldn't count by doing the exact same shit I already caught you doing:
"UK/EU website"
"puns"
"obstacles"
"category error"
That's not neutral pre-analysis dude no matter how much you wish it to be. That's you trying to make it non-actionable as it contradicts the very things from your category.
Also to be blunt, not my problem. I'm not exactly inventing an author here; I'm reading the words on the page. If you want to nullify the plain agency/design implication, you need an actual criterion stronger than "pun" or "marketing". That, or disregard any non confirmed canon lines, but doing so shoots down all the guides, NA, etc. stuff too. I'm fine with either or.
If you have issue with it, take it up with Nintendo, I'm not the person who made the claim, they were, and the wording attributes deliberate design/work over time by someone. Whether you want to call that "created" or "built" doesn't matter; the point is it isn't "Bowser instant magic slop", and you don't get to downgrade that implication with because of a pun, point is you need a consistent admissibility rule that also knocks out the other regional blurbs you’re willing to leverage. Not just a sign, who knows maybe they shoved the blatant plaque not part of the locale on top of a gear afterward, but you know what isn't that?
The entire actual course that has you racing through gears, clocks, and the general location.
That's far different from a lil sign they stuck up, that's the actual location itself as a whole, which is what the actual statement is referring to, and a fact YOU accidentally conceded to last post when you tried to push the whoever it was who took time to make it making obstacles and whatnot (which in reality is just the inner workings of the clock itself).
Anyway,
Do note, in Mario 64 itself they call TTC a course, so if that's your defining factor and argument, well, I guess they did, if "course" means its just a racetrack. And IF by your definition a "course" isn't an "entire universe", then EVERY SINGLE PAINTING AND LOCATION IN MARIO 64 ISN'T EITHER BECAUSE EVERY SINGLE ONE IS CALLED A COURSE.
You legit just sabotaged your entire argument; if your argument hinges on "course = racetrack only", then you just sabotaged yourself because Mario 64 itself uses "course" for its stages (including TTC). That's not my problem - that's your semantics literally exploding on contact with the actual game itself.
This is the same pattern as earlier: assert an extreme extension, mock it, and avoid the standard you already invoked, yet didn't even fact check before you tried to push it.
Nobody claimed foreshadowing or whatnot. It's irrelevant in a twist of irony.
This does not save you from what you already did in THIS exchange.
You defended the METHOD. You argued standards and consistency of regional Nintendo material. You tried to downweight a regional blurb as "pun/obstacles/category error" when inconvenient.
That is exactly the behavior under critique, regardless of whether you personally plan to cite the US scan later.
If you are truly not relying on NA-only blurbs, then you should have zero issue agreeing with the standard I've been pushing the entire time: Non-JP regional marketing blurbs don't mean shit without explicit proof and cannot override or supplement primary JP without corroboration.
If you refuse that, then you're still defending the same practice you're pretending you're not part of. And if you aren't, the agree with me and disagree with any instance of them in the OP.
Not how this works. "I won't rely on it right now" isn’t a position; it leaves the claim available for reintroduction later. If it doesn't meet the wiki's qualifications, you don't get to use it at all - not "later", not "in a different context", not "for now". Prove it, or drop it.
But do note, you just conceded to dropping American scans, as such, I fully expect you to:
1. Actually keep your word, you do not use them at any point in the future unless explicitly proven hard canon.
2. If someone else does, actually argue them too just as you've attempted to do with me.
Any backpedaling and I'm tapping the sign, or we can get KT or one of the many mods to tell you personally to prove or drop.
Not a misread. You're conflating "who posted the scan" with "who is defending the evidentiary stance" (that's you).
You made the "consistency matters" argument. You tried to police how the UK blurb should be read to strip it of force. You tried to accuse me of special pleading for rejecting your pun = invalid slop.
That is you participating in the standards argument and taking the incorrect side, all while supporting their stances.
Which: if you're invoking wiki-style evaluation, then follow the rules consistently. If you don't want that burden, stop appealing to those standards as a shield as you've already have.
I don't care what you're doing personally. I legitimately don't know why I even need to explain this to you but that's what this thread is doing and that's the topic of discussion.
If you have a totally different argument that doesn't rely on NA-only blurbs, then say it plainly AND also say you reject the OP's method. Otherwise you're just laundering the same standards defense while pretending you're "not involved". Though I will note; if you have different points to make that don't rely on it, be that as it may, that isn't this CRT and you ain't OP. That's derailing this one with completely different arguments like 100 posts in with what is effectively your own different argument.
And if you disagree with them then actually say so. Like isn't it a tad odd you are now backpedaling into a stance like this?
Also tf you mean MY rules, you're on VSBW you follow OUR rules, not mine but the WIKI's.
This isn't a personal choice, you do it or you don't get to argue and it simply won't ever be accepted.
And that whole "I'm not even basing my argument on the American version it may get mentioned later, but in a different context" thing is exactly the slippery, bad-faith posture shit I'm calling out.
You don't get to simultaneously:
A. Distance yourself from the NA-only blurb so you can dodge responsibility for the method, and
B. Keep it in your back pocket with "maybe later" so you can still use it in some shape, way, or form, if the thread needs it.
Pick one. Prove it's admissible under the rules, or drop it entirely. There is no middle later ground. That's just hedging so you can cherry-pick when convenient.
The standard isn't "I won't rely on it right now". The standard is "is this admissible evidence for the claim being made, yes or no?"
If you can't show a non-JP regional blurb is vetted/corroborated with primary material (especially when the JP framing doesn't match), then it doesn't magically become usable because you say you'll use it "in a different context". That's just leaving it open to reintroduce the same weak foundation the moment it becomes convenient again.
And btw, don't act like you're "not at fault" just because you didn't write the OP specifically.
You are actively defending the exact double-standard behavior the OP relies on by doing two things in this exchange:
1. Arguing that regional Nintendo materials must be treated consistently when it benefits your stance, and
2. Trying to downplay a contradictory regional blurb to your stance via category error logic.
Even if you personally never cite the US line, you are still enabling the method: selective source, selective interpretation, selective admissibility.
If you want to actually separate yourself from the OP, say something akin to:
"NA-only blurbs that conflict with JP should not be used as the basis for world creation claims unless corroborated explicitly as canon by an authoritative source and do not contrast the primary canon".
No "maybe later". No "different context". No "it might be mentioned".
Either it's admissible and you can defend it under consistent standards, or it's not and you drop it.
Keeping it vague is not neutrality. It's a hedge so you can deny involvement while keeping the option to cherry-pick shit later.
Then retract the messy parts explicitly. Don't use "I wasn't focused" as a retroactive dodge after being called out for poor arguments, faulty claims, and inconsistency.
That's what you wrote, was it not you who said not to mind read? It is not my problem if what you wrote is not what you intended, that's the claim you made, and that's the claim I'm taking apart.
Plus some of what you wrote wasn't just "messy", it was substantive insertion. Example: the "and power stars" add-on.
That was not supported by the mechanic you cited, and it was circular: you wormed the contested conclusion back into the premise as if that isn't why we're arguing to begin with.
If you admit you were sloppy, then own that shit instead of doing whatever it is you're trying to pull here: drop the sloppy part, not my criticism of it.
Do note how you didn't even specify what parts were "sloppy/unfocused/etc.". Am I just supposed to guess? Read your mind if you will? If so I'm going to guess everything, in which case concede.
Then point to the exact "false assumption" with a quote. Do the basic work you keep refusing to do. And mind you, do not hide behind the "well my exact wording wasn't" type stuff that you already did above, if the actions and substance of your argument entails something to be true, me tackling that necessity for your greater point to work, is still arguing your point.
Because ngl so far "misrepresentation", "false assumptions", "dishonest" are just buzzwords you throw out when you don't have a clean rebuttal and it's self-evident at this point, you've already done it 3 times in a row.
Also given the history here:
1. You complained I didn't address things word-by-word and dismissed points that were irrelevant.
2. You complain, call me ******* lazy even for not doing so.
3. I did exactly that to appease you even though nothing actually changed in your argument.
4. Now you're complaining it's long.
Pick one. You demand point-by-point engagement and then hide behind "wall of text" as a dismissal tactic.
You wanted it.
Hell you even said it was fair, why the backpedal?
And no nice try dude, everything in that last post for the most part where things directly out of your mouth such as regional canonicity double standards, tone and theming invalidation, world creation arguments, and even headcanon without backing evidence like your power star line and more.
Honestly it's insulting, it's you who shoved in about twenty disconnected arguments while supporting twenty more, complained you need a point-by-point breakdown, and now because you're incapable of arguing the things you got caught doing, refuse or want to hide behind some vibe-words when it's nobody's fault but your own that you got hit with 50 points.
I said it did I not? 20 points will get twenty answers, repeating the same point will get the same answer, whether it's 1 or 50 times a post. I'm not gong to hear you complain "I missed a point" or "I'm lazy I didn't tackle this lil detail". You quite literally asked for it yourself, that's on you.
It's relevant because your reply was not ONLY "my foundation is different" too.
Your reply made general claims about how evidence should be evaluated, what kind of text it is, why it's a category error, and why consistency matters.
Those are foundational claims about standards and admissibility. That's what I addressed.
And even if your "upcoming point" is totally different, you already took a position on the standards and reading method. You don't get to detach from it after the fact.
Already addressed above: you don't get to detach from the standards/method arguments you already made just because you're now trying to save face.
And even if your "upcoming point" is totally different, you already took a position on the standards and reading method under a context and premise the lines you are now trying to say you aren't using, are required for. You already pulled it dude, you can't act like you didn't, and if you changing your stance actually concede the points.
Besides, again, you wanted me to tackle points with little relevancy as it was, stop complaining that you got exactly what you wanted.
Tone policing is not a rebuttal. If the logic is wrong, refute the logic. If the logic is right, tone doesn't save you dude.
I'm sure one of the 5 mods lurking would be able to properly pinpoint exact lines in my reply that was "overly aggressive". If they do not, well shrug. Regardless. If the logic is wrong, refute it, if not, concede it.
And the only reason you're even pivoting to tone is because you evidently still won't answer the one thing that ends this shit immediately: State one objective, consistent rule for when non-JP regional/marketing blurbs are admissible for hard claims, and apply it to BOTH supportive and contradictory examples.
Until you do that, this is just a sequence of open-ended paths you're trying to leave open for later.
First "pun", then "category error", now "course scope", then "I'm not using US scans", then "I wasn't coherent", then "tone".
None of that fixes the core issue dude, you're backpedaling, goalshifting, and not even being consistent with it: selective standards and cherry-picked source weight is what you were arguing.
And here's the irony to all of this: You're pivoting to playing both sides of the "reply to every point" demand depending on what benefits you. Earlier, you complained that I "ignored" your first two points and acted like that was some sin, as if skipping two irrelevant lines of denial that didn't rebuke the actual contend was proof of "laziness" and "misrepresentation" or worse even, "inability to do so/dodging". You demanded point-by-point engagement.
Now, the moment you're actually arguing with me and I did exactly what you wanted, suddenly it's:
"I'm cutting through all this"
"wall of text"
"most of it isn't relevant"
"I wasn't coherent/my reply was unfocused/messy" (this is you).
"aggressive tone"
and now the implied "I don't want to reply to every point".
So which is it?
Either point-by-point matters, or it doesn't.
You don't get to require it, then abandon it as "clutter" when the same standard forces you to answer on my end.
Also, stop throwing out accusation-words like they're arguments:
"misrepresentation", "false assumptions", "dishonest", "false dichotomy", "gish gallop", whatever tf you want to use as a substitute for evidence.
Those are not rebuttals. They are labels you slap on something to avoid engaging with it. Would you like me to go over every fallacy you've done instead of replying to you? I could? In fact Every post past this I'm doing exactly that on top of point-by-point.
If you claim I misrepresented you, quote the exact line and correct it without backpedaling what you actually wrote/argued/supported.
If you claim a false dichotomy, present the third consistent option and apply it universally.
If you claim gish gallop, then pick one substantive point, refute it cleanly, and the rest collapses.
You can't because my points are not random. They're all the same critique from different angles: selective standards and cherry-picked sources with contradictory evidence to your stance.
And the gish gallop accusation is especially funny here, because YOU are the one who demanded granular responses in the first place.
Dude: if you don’t answer the standards question and engage substantially, then there’s nothing left to discuss here besides your hedging. As it stands, you haven’t addressed the substantive points above whatsoever.
Substantive engagement means:
1. State a single, objective rule for when non-JP regional/marketing blurbs are admissible for hard claims,
2. Apply it to both the blurbs that support your preferred narrative and the blurbs that contradict it,
3. Stop hedging with "maybe later in a different context" unless you can actually justify the source under that rule,
4. And stop hiding behind label-words instead of quoting, refuting, and giving canon evidence that directly confirms your claims as an objectivity.
If you can't do that, well tone, length, and fallacy yap don’t answer the evidentiary question, it is just what it looks like: avoidance, cherry picking, and inability to prove or substantiated your claim.
Uh ok I will ig.
If you won’t state what these links are meant to establish, I’m not treating them as part of the argument, so state the proposition these links are supposed to entail as hard proof. If you can’t, they’re irrelevant.
Right now this is just two unrelated examples, and neither one touches the actual dispute happening, honestly it's kind of aggravating you even think I have to reply but: source admissibility + mechanism + whether Bowser is being credited with creating these locations via Power Stars in Mario 64.
Is the current topic of debate.
This is literally the largest non sequitur this thread.
I'm calling out "this specific claim is being propped up by dubious/region-only/low vet copy and then stretched into uni creation", and your response is "here's some other unrelated thing somewhere else".
That does not validate the original claim or the methodology. We'll get to those when, or if, they actually matter, not mid-argument for the only reason why it might matter.
It's basically the same move as someone calling out "Piccolo's SoL line is NA-only and not vetted" and getting hit with "well FREEZA has an SoL statement" like... ok? Cool. That doesn't magically make Piccolo's NA-only line admissible or true? Different statement, different context, different burden.
So yeah, you don't forget? That reply is functionally ignoring what actually has to be established before any of those examples matter, a pretty large hurdle being forgotten there.
Now on your examples:
1. The Boo cinema example is absurd as an argument for THIS claim.
Even if a haunted movie theater exists, and has some weird pocket-space with unknown origins/mechanics, that still doesn't do the thing you need lad:
It doesn't prove Mario 64 paintings are alternate spacetimes instead of teleport to who knows where.
It doesn't prove the painting wavy effect itself implies alternate dimensions.
It sure as hell doesn't prove Bowser created them with Power Stars.
You're committing scope leakage: "some weird pocket-space exists somewhere in Mario" does not mean "therefore every painting in Mario 64 is an alternate spacetime" and it doesn't mean "so Bowser created them".
That's multiple extra claims stacked on top of each other with zero bridging evidence for it to matter or connect.
And it's even worse because the franchise already gives you an extremely direct counterexample to your exact inference:
Odyssey's paintings do the same kind of wavy/teleport presentation and clearly just relocate to existing places in the same universe.
So even if, for argument's sake, you found ONE painting that led to some separate dimension, that still would not generalize to "all paintings are dimensions", and it absolutely would not generalize to "Bowser created them".
2. The "big inside" angle doesn't help you either, and you're skipping steps again.
Peach's Secret Slide and Dire, Dire Docks already show the exact kind of "teleport to a bigger interior / elsewhere" TARDIS behavior without it being Bowser cooking up a universe.
And per the very guide people keep appealing to, Dire Dire Docks is simply under Peach's Castle, which means here's a "world" accessed via the same kind of effect that is explicitly just a location in the same dimension, and I note this one moreso because it also has Mario enter it via wavy effect + funny painting sfx + white warp + kick out on death the same exact way as paintings, and more (which were all counterpoints prior), and yet, going by the same sources being clung to, it's legit just below the castle
Like please actually read your own citations fully.
So even granting "bigger on the inside" for some areas, that still doesn't imply:
A. Alternate spacetime realms, and
B. Koops creating them.
Pre-existing warped interiors / pocket spaces are a totally different claim from "Bowser fabricated like 15 universes". Different claim, different burden.
3. Mirror Mode is missing THREE required steps to be used as a feat, and right now you're just going with the maximum interpretation.
A. That isn't even a Power Star unless you prove it is. A star-like object (that doesn't even look like a Power Star) is not automatically the same artifact as the Power Stars from 64.
B. Even if it is a star, you have not proven the mechanism. A mirrored result could be perception manipulation to universe creation. You do not get to assert "it created/flipped a universe" just because the end-state looks mirrored.
C. Even if you proved a mechanism, you still haven't proven scaling. There's no UES here, we don't know what the object is, and "thing did thing" does not automatically mean the character's AP = whatever.
Hell it could be hax.
So as-is it's:
unidentified object + undefined mechanism + unjustified high-end interpretation + and then an even more unjustified jump to stats.
And again: this whole tactic you're using is just throwing disconnected examples as if it proves the Mario 64 claim by association, while ignoring the contradictions and counterexamples that actually matter for THIS thread:
We got multiple stages/areas implied or stated to exist prior to Bowser's takeover (Bob-omb Battlefield, Thwomps, Boo's Haunt, Dire Dire, multiple secret stages, etc.)
Odyssey's paintings proving "wavy painting teleport" don't mean "alternate realm", forcing required proof instead of assumption.
And even if some locations are separate, that still does not entail that Bowser created them or that they all are; that attribution is the very point under dispute and needs its own direct support.
So no my dude, this isn't something I need to address, link-spamming unrelated examples doesn't actually help, it doesn’t connect to the claim at issue.
If you want to contribute here, do the work in-order:
1. Prove the specific sources being used are admissible under our standards (not "Nintendo published it").
2. Prove the specific Mario 64 locations you're talking about are actually separate unis (not just teleport locations / warped interiors).
3. Prove Bowser is the one credited with creating them, not merely invading/occupying/warping/using them, using only canon information due to Point 1.
Until those three steps are met, this is as a substitute for evidence, and it doesn't answer the claim.
Galactidot
They/Them- 676
- 574
Huh?
Are you kidding me? I'm going to tweak out man.
I already said it's a case-by-case whether or not paintings are worlds or portals.
IN THE POST THIS ONE IS IS REFERRING TO.
I never implied that. Read the post.
HOLY HELL! HOW INTRIGUING!
I ACKNOWLEDGED THAT ALREADY
I'll say it one more time, Chariot.
I never said that
READ THE ROOM
My ass honestly.
I'll explain this like I'm talking to someone who has never powerscaled in their life.
I used both my Mario Kart example AND your precious Odyssey example.
I'm order to give examples of Paintings being able to be PORTALS, OR WORLDS.
Get it? I made the "or" extra big so you'd actually read it! Funny, huh?
- 24,309
- 37,740
Yall type like yall get paid by the word
- 1,683
- 852
its like chariot and the other guy, also what do u think about all of tempest?
- 24,309
- 37,740
From the little I've seen chariot and chompy make sense but it's like... there's so many words and points that my evaluation really means nothing until i've read it all
Galactidot
They/Them- 676
- 574
I do
- 505
- 214
I guess I’ll start this off by just clearing things up. I’ve been mentioned a few times in this thread (understandable, since I proof-read and helped with the draft here and there, though it is largely SuperMarioGamers3’s own thread), which somehow got skewed into me being some shadow villain debating from behind the scenes. The quotes from me were things I said before the CRT was even published, rather than me offering my counters for SMG3 to say on my behalf. My only real argument without appearing here was me offhandedly telling SMG3 about the “kenkokusuru” verb out of interest, which he then ran with on his own without the nuance I was planning to bring up in my own response (tl;dr he's not parroting what I tell him to say here). So, sorry if I came off as this hard-to-pin-down mastermind from misunderstandings!
Secondly, I’m not too sure how I got seen as endorsing the translation, unless the humorous-tone in which I called it out somehow came off that way. I was rather telling SMG3 he once again repeated a faulty translation he’s already been exposed for butchering, to the point that it can’t even fool anyone as Toad’s dialogue is such a repeated quote here that we all know the real translation by now. Sorry for implying I was supporting that sort of behaviour (especially as a translator myself) if it came off that way.
I had a ton of talking points planned for my response to how this thread was going, but it seems in the time it takes for me to write out my thoughts, the thread has moved on to a new situation. Maybe I’ll be able to cover these when the thread calms down a little, such as some disingenuous arguments I’ve seen or things I think need more exploration to point out the nuance at hand, but I think the huge elephant in the room is the verb being used in this all-important Toad quote. To make a long story short, つくろうと しています is an interesting thing to say, and does seem to put a spanner in the works for those in favour of the feat, even being deemed “the nail in the coffin”. I noticed this was brought up by Chariot but never seemed to be getting solved, people dancing around the issue or pointing out interpretations of the game’s plot to try to diminish its effect.
At first, the space between と and しています in the scan may make you miss this is not the しています form, but rather than としています form, also referred to as the ~とする form, the ～よう+とする・～う+とする form or the “volitional verb + とする” form. This form is definitely about trying and attempting the verb in question, and you can find an example of someone online asking to explain the similarly worded つくろうとしている to put things into relevant context.
However, information on this verb form is quite limited as resources go. I checked a few textbooks to deep-dive into flexibility of use for the term, but couldn’t actually find mentions in them. The closest to a textbook explaining it I could find was a JLPT webpage, but it seemed to want to cover a very specific tense and usage that didn’t match the one Toad used. There are webpages online that help explain the try to/attempt to meaning, but rarely any formal explanation or full context, oftentimes explanations from the website’s community. As such, just saying “Oh, Toad just said Bowser’s trying to create them” isn’t the most helpful way to explain this point being hyped up as the big roadblock here, as it doesn’t give the full story or understanding of this translation.
With the thread having gone as back and forth as it has, I think it forgot the original problem at hand, offering new ways to try to make proof harder and moving further from the core issue. The claims about the English version being a mistranslation on the thread reminds me of way back in the wiki’s history, when this game’s localisation was called into question. As older Japanese games are known for being questionable at times in their translation, it was posited there was a chance this Lobby Toad quote was a mistranslation. However, it may be a little hasty to just say Super Mario 64 is yet another example of a sloppily translated game of old, as a video on MIPS of all characters will tell you that the Japanese and English versions are comparable in script. However, it does also mention that the English version added an extra dialogue box to make an Alice in Wonderland reference, so maybe we should examine if there’s extra dialogue or changes in what this Lobby Toad has to say in order to determine how much fun Leslie Swan had writing this. And at a glance, Japanese and English both follow a strictly 5 box-long speech, not much room for freedom. But that’s not good enough, so we need to assess how comparable they are, and they do seem to say much the same thing in each box:
- Mario’s presence is relieving, and the news that Peach, Toad and everyone are stuck in the walls.
- Bowser has stolen the Power Stars and is using them for his goal. (JPN adds the request to retrieve those Stars)
- Mario can use the Power Stars to unlock the doors Bowser has sealed. (ENG has the request to retrieve those Stars appear here, whilst JPN goes on to mention the 4 rooms of the first floor)
- Bowser hasn’t sealed the room with the Bob-Omb painting, so Mario should start there. (ENG has the 4 rooms of the first floor mention appear here)
- Upon collecting 8 Power Stars, the door with the big star on it can be unlocked, where surely behind which Peach must be held.
And this is what makes it so interesting. If it was a poor translation we’re dealing with, these discrepancies would make sense but yet the English version did want to stay as true to the Japanese as it could. And this makes sense, as what little clues we’ve seen to behind the scenes of the translation process do help paint that picture: the translation process was handled by Leslie Swan, Mina Akino and Hiro Yamada, alongside Miyamoto according to an interview, with the wording implying he was giving his own input to influence the end result. So it does seem this was handled and verified by several people with Japanese knowledge.
[SIDE NOTE: I don’t see why Leslie Swan is being tarred as a “literally who”, surely she rang a bell as someone who voiced Princess Peach, no small claim to fame (I’m not saying that this means Charles Martinet should be our premiere source of canon
I’m not saying this means the localisation is an absolute authority from here, but rather we shouldn’t shun English for the sake of shunning just because it’s of Japanese origin, and instead use it as our guide for how Nintendo’s in-house staff themselves see the translation and compare notes with it to see how they might have reached this conclusion. Which begs the question, if the quote clearly says つくろうとしています (trying to create), why did the English version not follow suit? It seems hard to miss, even fans are picking up on it in this thread, yet Nintendo themselves seemed fine with shifting that detail when it came to translating in an otherwise accurate Toad speech. There has to be some reason this wasn’t deemed important enough to keep (clearly Miyamoto insisted the team MUST have the might of the Power Stars be recognised by the Western audience— probably not).
So, I find myself once again asking just how flexible an ending としています is for a verb. Try as I might, I can’t find any deep explorations into the nuance of this verb form, so it does lead to me wondering how much freedom we have here. The question at hand is what does trying to create mean? Because you can read into such wording in a more generous light, with Bowser being a recurring villain with scheme after scheme, can it play into the “This time, Bowser’s trying this”-type reading? At that point, it’s less Bowser is yet to achieve this goal or is still in the process of creating, and more like “he’s tried many things, this time he’s trying out creating カイブツのくに to see if that sticks” as another addition to a long list of evil plans (seemingly not clashing with the ～てみる form out of not having yet seen how this plan will fare against Mario). Alternatively, it’s supposed to lead way to the interpretation that Bowser has created some of these early game カイブツのくに, but he’s not done yet and is in the process of making more one-by-one (certainly in line with the present tense ～ます ending), so I guess he truly did have time on his hands to have the luxury of getting around to making the late-game Tick Tock Clock after Mario arrived! Considering Mario arrives to the Mushroom Castle through a Warp Pipe (he’s able to get there fast!), to say Bowser still isn’t quite done making every カイブツのくに yet, having only created the more instantly accessible ones, would be fair.
Because I suppose nothing denies these readings from what I’ve seen, but I don’t know how I feel about pushing an English interpretation of the word “trying” onto the Japanese equivalent of “trying”, it’s a risky game. But it would certainly line up with the idea that the English translation team just didn’t see it as worthwhile to point out as it might have come off as confusing. Interesting note, in Super Mario 64 DS, they do actually change how they translate this line in the English version to be more in-line with the “くに = land” view, so maybe people might claim this was a “more accurate and updated” translation, and yet even here they don’t say “trying”. It really does seem that Nintendo’s in-house English team doesn’t see the “trying” as a necessary facet of this, and that it was more so the ～ます present tense (“he is using their power/magic to create”) is the important part here. So, I think a good idea going forward is putting on the table how exactly the としています form can be used if we really want to go with that as the all-important argument. There’s just too much vagueness about it for it to be something merely said to shoot down the arguments without delving into the why (since the word “trying” is evidently flexible enough).
SuperMarioGamers3
He/Him- 252
- 270
- Thread starter
- #105
She knows Japanese and does research on it. She has a history of translating, lol.
Ok, I'll play it real; my bad. I kinda crtl+c and ctrl+v the translation I already had, and I'll concede I was kinda playing bad optics by doubling down on that. The thing is, "kuni" is translated as "world" a ton of times in the Mario series, which is why I thought it was perfectly valid. I also insist that the Japanese context of the Toad by HMC means that "kuni" can absolutely mean "world", since "kuni" itself can be vague.
The publisher was the NOA itself, not some random entity outside of Nintendo. Also, I saw some odd caveats to the scenario team.
...it doesn't exist. Or, at least, it gets no credit. We see that there was a credit to Nintendo EAD & Miyamoto and the Game Director (Publisher), but in reality, there was no specific scenario writer. At best, I'd speculate that there was a small team that Miyamoto oversaw, review, and likely edited and changed. @LuckyEmile elaborated on this as well.
What? My standard was that, for a guide of the game, approved by the devs, written by the localizer who worked on the game with Miyamoto, designing something meant to elaborate on elements of the story itself. I'm just wondering why you insist on downplaying how close this guide was the Japanese devs.
The same objection you yourself made. I was parroting you.
I need you give me the exact sentence on the Wiki's canon document that it MUST be vetted by SPECIFICALLY the scenario team. Becuase I have the author himself (who designed the plot) working on the English version and dicussing it with Leslie.
My literal point was that there's NO contradiction between the two, meaning that it's fine to use the much more clear statement in the English version. Quit misunderstanding my point. There is no contradiction, prove that there is.
...you mean the Special thanks given to the writers at Nintnedo EAD? Seems riduclous to credit them and call them out, and the proceed in the guide to make false claims or claims they never would have intended.
...the Translations and Guides are not adaptations. Show me that they are. Do you think the MANUAL is an adaptation? Because there's no evidence that the scenario team wrote the manual either! In fact, Leslie wrote the manual as well. The Japanese one onlt
Why does he have to? He had the gist, he likely read the important plot text and had zero issue with it, because, lo and behold, there was no contradiction.
...he oversaw it. The Japanese oversaw what she was doing, she had to get approval from them, and she worked with two in-house translators, as @LuckyEmile.
I didn't say this. I literally did not say this. I was countering your point by noting that the Power Stars can do much more than just "go to other places", as even the replay bosses are not accurate to the in-game events, with the Mecha-Wiggler boss fight being a perfect example.
Also... this ain't the same place. It's just a blank white void. A different place than before.
Oh, and guess what, pal?
"Another World"? WOW! That sound so familiar, I wonder if a certain manual was talking about that!
I didn't say that. I used the context of 64 specifically. Stop inventing arguments for me.
Tell me, what happens when you die in this one? Bowser's areas aren't called worlds, the stages aren't called worlds, only the paintings and walls with the warp are called worlds. Irrelevant.
I do.
When it's constantly repeated and stated, it's called pattern recognition.
- 505
- 214
Oh, I forgot to say, thank you!
SuperMarioGamers3
He/Him- 252
- 270
- Thread starter
- #108
His only contention with me was one out the multiple 3-A or higher feats I showed- and even that didn't work.
Galactidot
They/Them- 676
- 574
Hold on, wait for his response to my post. He misunderstood it (or misinterpreted what I was trying to say)
- 19,732
- 21,192
"Huh?" is not a reply.
1. I asked you to do one basic thing: state, in one sentence, what proposition your two links are supposed to establish. You didn't. Don't whine to me due to failure on your end.
2. You posted the links, so the burden to connect them is yours.
If you cannot even say what they are meant to prove, then they are not evidence in this argument. They're just disconnected irrelevant citations that don't at all comment on the subject at hand, actual derailing and shifting the goal here.
3. Pick the claim. Explicitly.
Your links are only relevant if you're asserting ONE of these (or something equivalently specific). So which is it?
A. "These links prove Mario 64 paintings in particular are separate space-times/realms rather than relocation/warp".
B. "These links prove the wavy painting effect inherently implies alternate dimensions."
C. "These links prove Bowser is the cause of creating these locations via Power Stars (not merely invading/using them)".
D. "These links prove "bigger on the inside = universe creation".
E. Something else: state it directly.
And A through D need to be simultaneous.
4. If you won't choose, I'm ignoring you and moving on, I do not have the patience to coddle you on top of everyone else dude. Post something of note or get off me.
Not as a dodge mind you, but because a link with no stated proposition is not an argument.
5. Reminder: this CRT still has 3 required steps you keep skipping.
Before "other examples" matter, you still have to do the actual work for the claim being made here:
Step 1: Prove the sources being relied on are admissible under our standards (not "Nintendo published it").
Step 2: Prove the Mario 64 locations in question are actually separate realms (not just teleport/warped interiors).
Step 3: Prove Bowser is credited with creating them via Power Stars, not merely occupying/warping/using them.
So again: what claim are your links meant to establish? If you can't answer that, your links are irrelevant to the current dispute.
Lil odd because I never replied to you before this.
Yet, cool then? Then you just admitted my entire point, and your links are even more pointless than before.
1. "Case-by-case" means you don't get to generalize.
If it's case-by-case, then any attempt to treat "paintings = alt unis" as a default is dead on arrival.
You must prove it for the specific Mario 64 paintings being used in the claim. Every time. No shortcuts.
2. Your examples still don't connect to Mario 64.
Even if your links show "a painting can sometimes be a world/pocket-space somewhere in Mario", that does not establish:
A. That any specific Mario 64 painting is a separate space-time,
B. That the wavy painting effect implies a separate dimension,
C. Or that Bowser created any of it with Power Stars.
So yeah: it's still a non sequitur. "Sometimes in the franchise" does not mean "this is the mechanism here".
You keep forgetting the burden is on you to prove they are, not on anyone else to prove they don't have to be, the fact I've done both is beyond what I should have to do.
3. And you just conceded the standard I've been demanding.
Case-by-case means you need bridging evidence for each Mario 64 location the CRT wants to treat as a separate realm.
The existence of Odyssey-style warp paintings alone already forces that standard, because it proves the same visuals effects and methods can mean simple relocation explicitly.
So thank you: "case-by-case" = "prove it every time".
4. This also doesn't touch the actual dispute in the thread.
Even if we grant (for the sake of argument) that one or two paintings somewhere are worlds (to what degree, that itself would need to be argued to), that still does nothing for the core claim being pushed here unless you do these steps in order:
Step 1: Source admissibility (no region-only marketing blurbs overriding/creating canon claims without corroboration). So no Eng only contradictory line, no Nintendo Power, none of that, you stick to Japanese only or vetted canon.
Step 2: Mechanism for the specific Mario 64 paintings being used (uni vs warp) with actual evidence.
Step 3: Attribution: proof Bowser is credited with creating these locations via Power Stars, not invading/using/altering them, and especially that they did not exist beforehand (as multiple examples in that very game fall under explicitly anyway).
Your "case-by-case" statement skips all three. And your links don't fill those gaps lad.
5. If you're agreeing it's case-by-case, then stop throwing unrelated examples as if they establish the Mario 64 claim by association. Pick a specific Mario 64 painting/location being used for the "uni creation" argument, and prove:
A. It's a separate realm (not a warp),
B. The evidence for that is admissible,
C. Bowser is the creator via Power Stars.
Otherwise you're not advancing the argument, you're causing me to argue for the hell of it.
I did. You don't get to play that game dude.
I responded to what YOU actually posted to me in this exchange: two hotlinks + "Wall of text / I don't forget".
That is not an argument. That is a drive-by with no stated proposition.
If you had an actual claim, you were supposed to write it my dude.
If you refuse to state what the links are meant to establish, I am not obligated to mind-read your intent by hunting through your other conversations or your other arguments with other people. Unless you'd prefer I do start mind-reading? You and Star both seem to take issue when I don't after all, might save us both some time.
And "read the post" is not a rebuttal to scope leakage, because scope leakage is about what your evidence would need to entail to matter here.
So let's make it painfully simple for you dude:
1. If your links are NOT meant to imply "painting weirdness somewhere in Mario therefore Mario 64 paintings are alt space-times", then they are irrelevant to the dispute I am addressing. Period. Don't get on my ass because I'm not arguing completely irrelevant shit to the dispute.
2. If your links ARE meant to support the Mario 64 claim, then yes, you are implying generalization unless you provide the missing bridge:
A. Prove the specific Mario 64 paintings in question are worlds (not warps),
B. Prove the mechanism in Mario 64 is the same as your examples,
C. And prove Bowser is credited with creating them via Power Stars.
You can't dodge that by saying "I never implied that" after posting evidence with no proposition attached.
Evidence without a stated claim is literally nothing.
So pick one and commit to it:
A. State, in one sentence, what your two links are supposed to prove in this argument.
or
B. Concede they're not aimed at proving anything relevant here and stop throwing around unrelated links.
Right now you're doing exactly what I'm calling out: cluttering with disconnected material, then acting offended when I don't treat it like it magically carries the claim.
And don't try to hide behind "read the post" again. I swear to God.
If your point exists, write it. If you can't write it, you don't have one.
Cool. Then we agree. And if you agree, you stop using painting visuals as a shortcut?
Because what I said there has two consequences, and "I acknowledged it" is you conceding both unless you can show where you actually resolve them:
1. Odyssey is a direct counterexample to the inference "wavy painting effect ergo alternate spacetime/world by default".
If you acknowledge that, then the effect is not probative on its own. It's just "this is a Mario warp presentation for paintings".
2. Once the default inference dies, you don't get to generalize across Mario 64 paintings.
Each painting needs its own proof that it is:
A. A separate spacetime/world, and then separately
B. That Bowser is credited with creating it via Power Stars.
You don't get to worm A in via visuals, and you definitely don't get B from A even if A were true.
So if you "acknowledged that already", then why tf are you still arguing like these links (or these examples as a whole) move the Mario 64 claim forward?
This is the core issue:
If you truly concede Odyssey breaks the default, then any "painting-related example elsewhere" is not a bridge; it's yap unless you show the mechanism is the same AND that it carries the specific conclusion you need for Mario 64.
If you do NOT concede the consequence, then you didn't actually acknowledge it in any meaningful way; you just name-dropped it and kept doing the same inference anyway, basic dodge, not ho this shit works.
Also: I don't care that you "already acknowledged it" somewhere else?
You replied to me with literal nothing saying address them while I've been arguing something very specific.
If you want me to treat your stance as coherent, write it in your reply to me:
"Yes, Odyssey shows painting effects can be simple relocation; therefore Mario 64 paintings need individual proof and cannot be assumed worlds, and Bowser creation cannot be assumed.".
If you can write that sentence, we're done with this tangent, save us both some time.
If you can't, then you haven't conceded anything, you're just posture-yelling and, in your own words, tweaking out, while still relying on the exact inference you claim you don't rely on.
So which is it?
Do you accept the consequence (individual proof required + no default = no shortcut to Bowser creation), or are you still trying to use presentation as a generalizer?
No. "I never said that" is not a rebuttal, it's an escape, you ain't slick.I'll say it one more time, Chariot.
I never said that
READ THE ROOM
Two problems:
1. I am not accusing you of quoting the sentence "Bowser fabricated 15 universes".
I'm pointing out that the conclusion you're defending in-practice requires that chain to be true, and you're treating pushback on that chain as "not relevant".
If your position in this thread is that the Mario 64 locations are separate spacetime realms and that Bowser is being credited with creating them via Power Stars (the actual claim under dispute), then you are functionally relying on:
A. Paintings / warp presentation implying "worlds" (or being strong evidence of it), and/or
B. "bigger inside" / pocket-space examples being usable as support,
and then
C. That those "worlds" are attributable to Bowser/Power Stars as creation.
My point hits A and B directly: the same warp presentation is used for plain relocation (Odyssey) and for "under the castle" interiors (Dire Dire Docks per the very guide being leaned on), so you do not get a default "world" inference. That forces individual proof every single time, and it breaks the shortcut to Bowser-creation regardless.
You don't get to dodge with "I never said that" when the stance you're supporting needs it to be true.
2. "READ THE ROOM" is just tone-posturing to avoid doing the shit that matters:
state your actual claim in one sentence and explain how your links/examples establish it.
You replied to me with two hotlinks and then "Huh?"
You did not state a proposition.
So I'm going to keep treating it as what it is: spam meant to gesture at "Mario has weird spaces" without proving anything about Mario 64 paintings or Bowser creation.
"Yes, Odyssey + DDD show warp/painting presentation can be simple relocation or under-castle interiors, so Mario 64 paintings require individual proof and cannot be assumed worlds, and Bowser creation cannot be assumed from them".
If you accept that, we agree and your links are irrelevant to the Bowser-creation claim.
Option 2 (what you're implicitly doing):
You still want those examples to support the Mario 64 world-creation narrative.
If so, stop hiding behind "I never said that" and do the work:
Which Mario 64 painting is a separate spacetime realm, proven by what primary evidence?
Where is Bowser credited with creating that realm via Power Stars (not merely invading/using it)?
And why doesn't DDD being "under the castle" nuke your default inference? Among the like ten others?
Until you answer those, "I never said that
" is meaningless, like actually do not pmo. You don't need to have typed the sentence for your argument to depend on it.
If your argument needs it, prove it, or drop the claim.
Cool, so you still didn't rebut a single point I made?
You just re-stated a claim I already addressed, added condescension, and hoped that would substitute for doing the work.
Let’s go line by line:
1. The attitude-flex ("I'll explain this like...") is irrelevant dude.
If you have an actual rebuttal, you would present it as evidence + inference, not as a posture.
2. "I used Odyssey and Mario Kart to show paintings can be portals OR worlds."
Yes. I read it. And that statement helps me, not you.
Because if paintings can be either (portal to an existing location OR access to a separate realm), then paintings are not a default proof of "worlds."
Which means: every Mario 64 painting needs its own direct proof of being a separate spacetime realm, not just "it’s a painting so it’s a world.".
That is literally my point.
You are acting like "OR" is a win condition. It's the opposite:
"OR" = ambiguity.
Ambiguity = you don't get to upscale the claim or slap it everywhere.
Ambiguity = you need individual verification, every time.
So thanks for conceding the default inference is dead.
3. You also avoided the actual topic again.
Even if I handwave for free that "some paintings can be worlds", that still does not get you the Mario 64 claim being pushed here.
You still have to prove three separate steps, and your reply doesn't touch any of them:
A. Identification:
Which specific Mario 64 painting is a separate spacetime realm (not an interior, not an under-castle location, not relocation)?
Name it. Prove it. Pray it doesn't have contradictions. Use only canon primary material.
B. Mechanism:
What canon evidence establishes that uni-status (not vibes, not "it looks big", not "painting does wavy") for it in particular?
C. Attribution:
Where is Bowser credited with creating it via Power Stars (not invading, not warping, not sealing stars, not corrupting the castle)?
That is the exact disputed claim coupled with regional material.
Your "paintings can be X OR Y" does not answer A, B, or C.
4. You ignored the Mirror Mode critique entirely.
I didn't say "Mirror Mode is fake".
I said it's unusable as a feat as presented, because it fails three required steps:
You didn't prove the object is a Power Star.
You didn't prove the mechanism is universe creation rather than some other effect.
You didn't prove scaling to AP.
Your reply does not rebut any of that. It just says "I gave examples". That's not a rebuttal and never will be.
5. You ignored the contradiction list entirely.
I gave multiple examples that undermine the default reading and the Bowser-creation leap:
DDD being under the castle per the same guide being leaned on.
Bowser 2 being consistent with WC.
Odyssey painting transport being relocation (same presentation, not alternate realms).
Multiple areas implied to exist before Bowser's takeover.
None of that was addressed. You just went "OR" again.
So here's the reality lil d: Your post is not a rebuttal. It's an admission that your evidence doesn't uniquely support your conclusion.
If you want to actually help out here, answer this shit directly, in-order:
1. Which Mario 64 painting/course is a separate spacetime realm? (Name it.)
2. What primary evidence proves it is a separate spacetime realm, and not relocation / warped interior / under-castle space?
3. What primary evidence credits Bowser with creating it via Power Stars?
Until you answer those, your "OR" isn't an argument. It's you conceding you can't establish the claim you're defending.
I expect an actual goddamn reply, and as for the rest of you, I'll be replying in full, not that it isn't obvious this is pre-coordinated (like ya'll know I'm in all those chats right? I can see you yapping?).
And then I'll be making my own staff only thread because this is actually ridiculous now.
- 24,309
- 37,740
Shit like this stops me from evaluating cause you really thought I was gon read this lmaooooo
- 7,131
- 1,965
SuperMarioGamers3
He/Him- 252
- 270
- Thread starter
- #114
I take my fat Italian plumbers very seriously.
- 7,131
- 1,965
Based
- 1,683
- 852
ngl chariot make a summary with less than 9 trillion words pls
- 7,131
- 1,965
Fr, i second this, i have no idea what is going on hahaha
SuperMarioGamers3
He/Him- 252
- 270
- Thread starter
- #118
Here's something; me and @Chariot190 share a discord server. I'm actually interested in doing a cordial VC conversation (which Mr. Chariot is more than welcome to record if he thinks I'll be dishonest with the conversation) to settle some finer details, since it seems we may be talking past each other in this thread.
Ghengiroo115
She/Her- 2,430
- 1,917
Uhhhhhhhhh after lurking for the first few days of this thread, I think I disagree? It’s hard to keep track of everything with how long every reply is, but I think Chariot makes more sense to me.
TyranoDoom30
He/Him- 2,882
- 1,445
I could have a word on this CRT if it wasn't filled with unneccessary, kaiju-sized bloating that make perfect material for copypasta
- Status
Similar threads
