VS Battles Wiki Forum

The fourth one hasn't had a new comment in 4 months, which was also the same day it was posted. I really wouldn't count that.

there's also this one. so there is indeed 4

Which also hasn't been posted in in several weeks, and neither has the speed revision.

they're both still open and had a decent amount of discussion. at least one of them should be concluded first.

I don't plan on postponing or closing the thread I just made due to minor revisions that have been inactive for three weeks, if that's what you're getting at.

I mean, that's kind of against the rules, as we currently allow a max of 4 verse CRTs and there isn't a timeframe given for how long a CRT can be open for.

edit: also, the speed one is not minor in the slightest, as it deals with immeasurable speed

Indeed, we do not have a specific time frame for when we consider a CRT abandoned. Are you arguing that all open threads, regardless of when they were lasted responded to, should be considered "open CRTs" for the purpose of this rule?

I consider speed revisions minor. Involving "immeasurable vs infinite" doesn't really change that IMO.

I'm not saying that a thread that hasn't had activity in several months should count. but I feel like 2-3 weeks is fine. I'd personally put the limit at maybe 4 weeks to a month.

Right, but you see the problem here right? There's no rule about this, specifically. So if I said "two weeks" and you say "four weeks" there's no actual way to resolve that in terms of what the rules are.

I mean, we can always just make a staff thread for it like last time. if you could close my Redo of Healer removal thread, I wouldn't mind typing it up real quick. I can even DM you the draft if you want

We could, but Ant wants to hold off on any wiki policy revisions for the time being and this issue is rather insignificant.

I can make it a sandbox and just DM you the draft. then I'll post it once we clear up some more of the wiki policy stuff. does that sound cool to you?

If you'd like, but I am pretty dispassionate about the matter. That rule is mostly just a guideline to keep things from getting too out of hand. It's rarely enforced much beyond truly egregious situations, which this is not.

the way I see it, it's still a rule. one that could actually help out if expanded upon more. because as it stands, it's just any open CRT with no time limit, which isn't helpful or useful at all, which we can both agree with.

also, discussion rule. it doesn't apply to the servants or souls and such, just the tier 1 stuff. a pretty large chunk of your arguments are covered inside of it from what I've seen.

This was discussed in the first thread:

Well it does, but that doesn't ban discussion. What it really means is that the arguments presented in previous threads shouldn't be used to make other CRTs to downgrade the verse. If someone came up with a new argument, which I feel this CRT does, then the discussion rule wouldn't apply.

Just think like this: Plenty of discussion rules have been changed or removed. Why? Because new arguments or information that was presented. It was never meant to be iron clad as much as to stop repeat discussions with the same information.

Click to expand...

the arguments presented in previous threads shouldn't be used to make other CRTs to downgrade the verse.

Click to expand...

yeah. and I'm saying that the arguments that were in the discussion rule shouldn't be used in the CRT. The Avalon Stuff and the Mooncell stuff that are in your CRT, for the most part, are stuff that's rejected under the discussion rule. I don't really care much about the soul and heroic spirit stuff, but a majority of your arguments are rejected by default due to the discussion rule, as they don't add anything new.

Well it does, but that doesn't ban discussion. What it really means is that the arguments presented in previous threads shouldn't be used to make other CRTs to downgrade the verse. If someone came up with a new argument, which I feel this CRT does, then the discussion rule wouldn't apply.

Just think like this: Plenty of discussion rules have been changed or removed. Why? Because new arguments or information that was presented. It was never meant to be iron clad as much as to stop repeat discussions with the same information.

Click to expand...

the reason why this was said in the first place is because it brought something new, although it ended up being false. it brought up a translation that that would change the 8D statement. the translation new translation brought up was wrong, but it was something new, so it was allowed to be discussed.

I understand that you're opposed to the conclusion I have made, but the existence of a discussion rule does not prevent anyone from ever changing it forever. The thread is going to proceed as is.

all I said was that you haven't brought any new evidence for the tier 1 stuff, and that you would need new arguments for the discussion rule to no longer apply to this, but ok.

Deagonx, you do realize you are breaking the discussion rule regarding the Nasuverse dimensions debunks. We can't talk about the same topics a gazillion times just for it to be debunked as always.