Better Call Solitude (Mario and Luigi Brothership 2nd CRT (3-A, 2-C, or 2-B))

[SuperMarioGamers3]

I'll admit that Galactidot is putting forth new things but this doesn't mean I am forced to engage with them.

Then do not call it a fabrication when you did not engage with the argument- this is basic reason. Galactidot already presented their evidence, which is as blatant as blatant gets.

 

[Armorchompy]

I cannot entertain new arguments forever, and five months in it becomes unfair to demand continued participation. While I understand it is not an intentional choice the method through which you have carried out this debate, which is a slow trickle of new disorganized arguments, is exhausting and unfair to the opposition. I cannot in good confidence claim your newest thing is invalid because I haven't gone over it but similarly I am not interesting in encouraging this debate to be prolonged even further. Thus I am not engaging more than strictly necessary.

Either way this is to be my last post on the topic. I will not tolerate comments from other people in particular. This is a CRT, not a peanut gallery.

 

[Galactidot]

I cannot entertain new arguments forever, and five months in it becomes unfair to demand continued participation. While I understand it is not an intentional choice the method through which you have carried out this debate, which is a slow trickle of new disorganized arguments, is exhausting and unfair to the opposition. I cannot in good confidence claim your newest thing is invalid because I haven't gone over it but similarly I am not interesting in encouraging this debate to be prolonged even further. Thus I am not engaging more than strictly necessary.

Either way this is to be my last post on the topic. I will not tolerate comments from other people in particular. This is a CRT, not a peanut gallery.

You know? I actually try to link them directly to your (or any other opposition's) comments for easy reading~
I'll admit, I'm surprised you consider them disorganized. That being said, if you still hold on to your ideal of shutting down any future Reclusa threads on sight, I'll say that I have no choice but to continue this method, for that is why it was formed.

If you believe there to be an alternative solution, then be my guest. But you'll either need to respond to everything in the initial CRT (hasn't happened yet for this one, actually, so I'm not sure why you brought that up), or let me continue this method. Either works~

 

[Armorchompy]

I'll admit, I'm surprised you consider them disorganized.

It's not that the arguments themselves have been particularly poorly made, the fact that they are being made so long after the OP is what I take issue with. It's hard even for me to keep track of everything we've discussed and what I have or haven't previously stated an opinion on, and it would be nearly impossible for someone else just joining in to get a good impression of the entire discussion so far. The bulk of an argument should be contained within the original proposal, not made months later after it.

That being said, if you still hold on to your ideal of shutting down any future Reclusa threads on sight, I'll say that I have no choice but to continue this method, for that is why it was formed.

I'm not going to close anything on sight unless you're literally just copy/pasting arguments from here or previous threads but I cannot endorse something done in a scattershot manner like this.

 

[Galactidot]

It's not that the arguments themselves have been particularly poorly made, the fact that they are being made so long after the OP is what I take issue with. It's hard even for me to keep track of everything we've discussed and what I have or haven't previously stated an opinion on, and it would be nearly impossible for someone else just joining in to get a good impression of the entire discussion so far. The bulk of an argument should be contained within the original proposal, not made months later after it.

Understood. In that case...

I'm not going to close anything on sight unless you're literally just copy/pasting arguments from here or previous threads but I cannot endorse something done in a scattershot manner like this.

...based on what you've said above, another thread would NEED to copy/paste previous arguments. If I can get them all in one place, then there should be no issue~

Does that make sense?

 

[SuperMarioGamers3]

It's not that the arguments themselves have been particularly poorly made, the fact that they are being made so long after the OP is what I take issue with. It's hard even for me to keep track of everything we've discussed and what I have or haven't previously stated an opinion on, and it would be nearly impossible for someone else just joining in to get a good impression of the entire discussion so far.

It could be nice to have the OP edited to account for the newer information presented in the thread, is that kept things clean and tidy.

 

[Armorchompy]

Understood. In that case...

...based on what you've said above, another thread would NEED to copy/paste previous arguments. If I can get them all in one place, then there should be no issue~

Does that make sense?

You should've had them all in one place to begin with. To repost them all is kind of a grey area at best, you're essentially just making the thread again. Admittedly I'm not iron solid on whether it's straight-up forbidden to remake threads that haven't reached a conclusion but given there's more rejections than approvals for this one it's at least a bit questionable.

It could be nice to have the OP edited to account for the newer information presented in the thread, is that kept things clean and tidy.

This would be good. Though I will note I probably wouldn't immediately respond to it, as I've said I am just burnt out on this debate and would not respond more than I need to.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

He isn't rehashing the same arguments, he actually found new translations; whether the translations themselves are accurate is a different story. And it's finally a piece of what I've been telling him to do from the beginning; actually show evidence of "Power of Bonds" being a UES. Which most definitely are starting to show signs between Power of Bonds and Power of Stars are liking creation feats as interchangeable with physical energy. And it was already demonstrated from Great Conductor's speech about unity and Power of Bonds are what fuel to make anyone or anything stronger.

New users grow all the time. Lots of people, staff included, started out as relatively amateur debaters before they grew and became a lot more professional. You cannot just be a total control freak who just locks every thread that doesn't suit your liking. That is exactly the same that got people like Matthew Schroeder, WeeklyBattles, and Eficiente demoted; the same thing could very well happen to you if you keep up this type of behavior. Having controversial viewpoints or personal agenda is one thing, but using those as a means to go off the deep end is unprofessional.

But anyway, this thread has already been exhausted and I would prefer to save the new stuff for a new and much more organized OP. There is a group collecting scans, which I may invite a few users (Some of whom are former staff and others who are staff). There are plans to make blog posts explaining in much better detail why Bonds are a Universal Energy System. CloverDragon and DemonGodMitch could be interested in helping out given their experience with Fairy Tail scaling an explanations. Though I do recommend to avoid making tier specific upgrade threads based on certain characters and instead focus on the more general lore stuff; like a much needed reevaluation on Super Mario Galaxy's ending and how Power of Bonds (While especially explained in Brothership is consistently hinted throughout the Mario series as a whole where there is an energy system with flexible names that embody the same concept). But all in all, I once again kept telling them to organize their arguments in an orderly fashion. But that doesn't just give other staff members to just prematurely shut down all discussions that they personally detest.

Armor has consistently had reasonable takes to a series I have seen immense amounts of unreasonable takes for. I dislike the accusations leveled, especially when the rules are in fact explicitly against allowing the same topic to be approached within a certain span of time (3-4 months). It allows for direct staff permission, which I will take your post as, but Armorchompy was strictly following our policies. You are going past that policy to allow it. Which is permitted, but accusing him of underhandedness is utter nonsense.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Thank you, SuperMarioGamers3, for judicating who is likely to have unbiased takes in regard to Mario, a verse absolutely rife with incredibly biased takes. Cut the bullshit or go.

 

[JPTheGamer]

Thank you, SuperMarioGamers3, for judicating who is likely to have unbiased takes in regard to Mario, a verse absolutely rife with incredibly biased takes. Cut the bullshit or go.

Okay, you know what? This is exactly the problem I have; all of you from both sides (including ours) think you're doing this verse a favor by talking like that but in reality you're just fanning the flames. We don't have an issue with any of your disagreements; all we ask is that you try to communicate in a better manner without the insults. This kind of attitude isn't wanted or needed; it's making us all look unprofessional.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Okay, you know what? This is exactly the problem I have; all of you from both sides (including ours) think you're doing this verse a favor by talking like that but in reality you're just fanning the flames. We don't have an issue with any of your disagreements; all we ask is that you try to communicate in a better manner without the insults. This kind of attitude isn't wanted or needed; it's making us all look unprofessional.

I'm not disagreeing or agreeing. I'm coming in to clarify a post made by DDM which maligned another staff member who was correctly doing their job. To which a user posted a mockery. Which you liked, by the way. You are being hypocritical and I ask you to stop. Derailing, disrespectful comments are, in fact, against the rules, and I have little patience for the aforementioned bullshit.

 

[JPTheGamer]

HeuI'm not disagreeing or agreeing. I'm coming in to clarify a post made by DDM which maligned another staff member who was correctly doing their job. To which a user posted a mockery. Which you liked, by the way. You are being hypocritical and I ask you to stop. Derailing, disrespectful comments are, in fact, against the rules, and I have little patience for the aforementioned bullshit.

Hey, don't go pointing fingers or calling people hypocrites! Your side is the exact same one that told us not to accuse you of bias & you're over here doing that exact same thing. You're not any better than the rest of us in that regard. And for a guy who demands politeness, you sure as heck don't show it to Mario Bros supporters.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I am not on a side. I am here to clarify a post. Which I did. To which you guys are acting out. I actively do not want to be on this thread.

 

[IDK3465]

I know I haven’t interacted in this thread but CAN EVERYONE HERE STOP F*CKING BICKERING AND CLOSE THE THREAD SO GALACTIDOT CAN MAKE A NEW CRT FOCUSING ON BONDS

HOLY ****, THATS LITERALLY ALL YOU NEED TO DO

 

[Mr. Bambu]

If Galactidot wants the thread closed, I can do so.

 

[JPTheGamer]

I know I haven’t interacted in this thread but CAN EVERYONE HERE STOP F*CKING BICKERING AND CLOSE THE THREAD SO GALACTIDOT CAN MAKE A NEW CRT FOCUSING ON BONDS

HOLY ****, THATS LITERALLY ALL YOU NEED TO DO

Yes! Thank you!

 

[SuperMarioGamers3]

Closa da thread

 

[SuperMarioGamers3]

Right, I suppose I should acknowledge the elephant in the room.

Since DDM can't say this at the current moment, he's coming back from work in another 2 hours or so to clarify some misconceptions, so hold tight on that.

 

[Galactidot]

If Galactidot wants the thread closed, I can do so.

Do it.

But keep note that you ignored the biggest thing Armor said, and that's him closing other threads on sight.

He has seemingly since stepped back on that idea, but know what this initially started with.
So mind considering that? Thanks~

Also, keep in mind, I don't require any of you entertain my threads if you don't wish.

But don't come in, read part of it, disagree, and leave, please?

Ookkaayyy.


Now we've got that settled, do what you wish

Within reason.

Close the thread.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Do it.

But keep note that you ignored the biggest thing Armor said, and that's him closing other threads on sight.

He has seemingly since stepped back on that idea, but know what this initially started with.
So mind considering that? Thanks~

Also, keep in mind, I don't require any of you entertain my threads if you don't wish.

But don't come in, read part of it, disagree, and leave, please?

Ookkaayyy.


Now we've got that settled, do what you wish

Within reason.

Close the thread.

Jesus Christ you guys get smarmy. I will reiterate that I'm not "coming in, reading part of it, and disagreeing". Ironically, this is a take that results from not reading my posts. I came in to clarify a rule to DDM, which would dispel these ridiculous accusations he leveled and that the peanut gallery has pushed onward.

If a thread is the same topic as a previously done one, he can close it. Immediately. That is the policy of the site.

Closing.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

To say that I am shutting things down "prematurely" is truly ludicrous given this thread has been open for over five months.

I wasn't talking about closing this thread nor the previous thread, I was specifically talking about this quote below.

I will lock any other Reclusa threads on sight.

The way you say that would gave me the impression that you were abusing what is listed on this page.

• It is very important that you do not close or remove threads without adequate reasoning, even if it is simply due to that a topic has been discussed to exhaustion previously and/or you do not have the time available to properly deal with it at the moment due to real life concerns, and do not wish for it to get out of control until you get some free time to do so. It is also usually best to ask for confirmations before closing discussions. It reflects badly on the staff as a whole if you do not follow these instructions.

While I am glad that you apologized later in the thread and that you acknowledged later down the line that Galactidot actually did started making some new arguments, your initial reaction was still overblown and very unnecessarily disrespectful. And while it is fine do not wish to deal with the new arguments; I and Starsprite have both specifically told Galactidot to stop bothering you on your wall on Discord when you told them both that you didn't wish to be bothered. But you cannot just be forcing community members to give up permanently and worst case scenario is just passing the torch to other staff members to evaluate until you are ready.

You know full well there is an abyss of difference between my behavior and that of those individuals, and if you do not then you are welcome at any time to make an HR report. More than just about anyone else in the wiki I think your accusation would be given weight. Until then I would thank you to avoid these reminders as they are extremely pointless. Similarly, I take issue with the insinuation that I am somehow uniquely driven by "controversial viewpoints or personal agenda".

Furthermore, I didn't say I was planning to report you and I was hoping I did not have to anytime soon. I was only intending to give you a fair warning that I might have to change if you decided to do with what the paragraph above warns staff members not to do. That being said, it was not an official report, but I was talking to a member of the HR group on discord and was exchanging personal opinions with them. They told me they that "You seem to have an extreme bias when it comes to video game verses as a whole and seem to especially target Nintendo verses." We also both agreed that simply having some very strong biases is fine; lots of people staff included have them. It's when users and staff make use of them by only following wiki rules, and standard wiki protocol when it fits your desires instead of trying to always remain consistent with them is when it becomes and issue. For example, we have quite specific rules when it comes to our primary canon vs secondary canon policy. I have made comments here, here, as well as to an extent here and here where I was mainly calling out a general practice and avoid name dropping any guilty staff members in particular due to it not being necessary to do it in any of those threads. I would have been straight with anyone if they were to ask me privately, even if said people in question turned out to be among the people I called out. But yes, I was legit calling you among several other staff who consistently agreed with your content revisions and rebuttals. And the fact that I hadn't reported you or anyone else right away is actually a sign that I am probably too generous.

I didn't mean to apply that this was uniquely an issue with you, there could indeed be lots of staff members and there definitely have been plenty of former staff members motived less by balance of the wiki and more based on personal agenda. Which I will elaborate later, but on to other matters.

Armor has consistently had reasonable takes to a series I have seen immense amounts of unreasonable takes for. I dislike the accusations leveled, especially when the rules are in fact explicitly against allowing the same topic to be approached within a certain span of time (3-4 months). It allows for direct staff permission, which I will take your post as, but Armorchompy was strictly following our policies. You are going past that policy to allow it. Which is permitted, but accusing him of underhandedness is utter nonsense.

While you sourced one rule page, I later sourced a different one that you can see above. I may have been hasty in the way I said it, to which my apologize for the misconception and hastiness. I have a habit situation in which "I only just woke up and I do not have much time before work, and I had an urgent post that seemingly needed my immediate attention." I blame not you, nor him, nor me, but rather just time zone shenanigans really. But I had good intentions. There is a limit to how quickly we can be too forceful at closing threads even if they happen to be "Repeated topics." Often times, they actually add new evidence to which Galactidot has gathered new primary canon Japanese texts; though objectivity or reliance of the translations could be a different story. And Armor also kudos'd the idea of editing the OP to include new information to make things easier to track, and I even agreed with him on some things that it's preferable to have your sources organized upon the creation of the content revision instead of doing it in the middle of the thread. There is no rule against that type of practice, but I do agree long run it is considered unorthodoxed, not very organized or professional and makes it difficult for staff to keep track of. But even so.

I didn't say that ArmorChompy hasn't been reasonable before. He got better in his later posts and it was the initial post where he threatened to "Close threads on sight" that was a violation for staff members to do according the paragraph I linked above. And it wasn't much different from those times back in 2018 when WeeklyBattles had a history of reverting edits that were approved by multiple staff members and locked the page; something he was heavily scrutinized and called out for that even Weekly has since acknowledged was irresponsible. Or same with those times Eficiente locked this thread which was later reopened by Abstractions. I just didn't want ArmorChompy doing much of the same thing. More over, as mentioned above. ArmorChompy also has had a history of deliberately violating our canon rules and standard wiki protocol when it came to revising other verses that he has made content revisions for in the past. And sure, while there could be some leniency that our canon rules' current state is written outdated and more recent staff members have been giving the blind eye to those practices, and he's not the only offender; the several staff members that kudos'd his content revisions and supported him at every opportunity would technically be just as guilty in that regard. And so far, I can only name a few verses in which he abused those practices, but to reclarify yet again.

Our standard wiki protocol when it comes to our canon policy is that the main work is the primary canon (Whether it's a book verse, movie verse, comic verse, manga or anime verse, or video game verse). And that side extended works such as guidebooks, databases, encyclopedias, official websites, advertisements, fliers, and strategy guides including creator interviews are secondary canon at best. Likewise, the same applies to language policy where the original native language of any specific work based on the original native language transcript is the primary canon and all translated localizations are secondary canon at best. For example, if a video game was developed in Japan following a Japanese transcript; that's primary canon. If it was developed in North America and followed an English transcript, the American English version is primary canon. Under no circumstances should a German exclusive localization be valued as the definitive version or primary canon of an Japanese owned intellectual property that specifically gave an American developer the greenlight/permission to write their own transcript and approved it in the end. Same with using some ancient strategy guide that are no more reliable than a Prima official strategy guide and from 1994 be considered more canon than a primary canon game released originally in 2002, and was remastered/rereleased twice both in 2009 and 2023 respectively. It's also a huge double standard that reeks of hypocrisy, poser status, and charlatan status to acknowledge lots of game design changes when a 2017 remake of an originally 2003, but kept one specific detail that remained consistent and tried to pass it as "Developers not caring." It should still be a general practice that secondary canon sources could be used if they give flavor

Which also goes on to my next point. ArmorChompy himself has kind of basically 1000% admitted to his violations when he made this post, which is the very same thread as one of my links calling out a group of community users and staff member combination with him being a noticeable highlight that I know from experience. But both I and SomebodyData (Who is in the HR group mind you) called him out violating our canon rules here way back when. And he is more or less guilty of doing much of the same practice on Paper Mario related threads; ignoring important details just because more recently released games are "Faithful remakes" which is a hypocritical practice that should only value remake updates if it's not faithful. But I am saving main concerns for when I make a staff thread to elaborate, expand on our canon rules page to include some very important rules that should be followed consistently. While "Following canon rules if it upgrades a verse you want to upgrade but not if it downgrades a verse that you don't want to downgrade" isn't a good practice, neither is "Following canon rules if it downgrades a verse you want to downgrade but not if it upgrades a verse that you don't want to upgrade." It should be simple as follow it regardless of whether it leads to upgrades or downgrades. And it's not just primary canon vs secondary stuff, there should more elaborate details when it comes to remake/remasters of video games. And our policy on retcons; sure changes in releases take priority in that case, but by the same logic, details that are faithful should 100% still be usable. And if certain threads need to be U-turned as a result, so be it. I hope to make the thread sooner rather than later, but I am always busy, especially since I am still recovering from surgery in my shoulder and I got an upcoming vacation trip happening some time beginning next week.

Now that I have elaborated and made those clarifications, I will be pinging @Armorchompy and @Mr. Bambu to let you know what I meant by some of those posts above. As the OP agrees with wanting their thread closed and probably will wait before making a new thread after checking the translations in the translations request thread. They're probably going to be focusing on other threads and/or plans for revisions in the mean time given that Reclusa or Brothership related debates need a break. Anyway, thank you both for your time and good night for now, peace out.

Edit: I forgot to mention this but @SuperMarioGamers3 it is inappropriate to be shit posting memes like the JK Simmons one, so Bambu was right to remove that post.

Edit 2: SMG wanted to let Bambu know that he apologizes for the post he made above.