VS Battles Wiki Forum

I would've been within my rights to close the thread without calling them due to the vote already being decisive enough.

I called them to the thread after ironing out the details based on you indicating that you would concede if they were both in agreement that the reasoning used was wrong. Instead you're saying "before I proceed" and preparing to make arguments against them, too, instead of conceding.

The forum has no shortage of people who will simply argue for weeks for their favorite verse. This thread was largely dead on arrival and my sole hope was that because the OP made such a fuss over what DontTalk said, hearing DT explain that they were wrong might matter. Turns out it didn't, they think DT and Ultima are wrong too, not just me and Agnaa.

It's a waste of time, and the thread has 0 staff agreement for an extra spatial dimension. We are moving on now.

So u decide based on votes or based on conclusions of a thread? Like people can vote for entirely different things. I hope u do recall that most of the staff already voted before we even started bringing up the spatial premise and that isnt even the full thread.
I can also discuss and argue with other staff like DT and Ultima too. They aren't infallible. Unless its a wiki rule that we must accept whatever they say.
Moreover I find it ironic that u are pushing this while u yourself insisted in a 2x vote behind thread to continue discussing.
Like just be consistent.

The spatial premise is in the OP, it wasn't brought up later. And yes, votes decide the outcome of a thread.

You can discuss and argue with DT and Ultima, but the only reason I kept the thread open to call them was based on your indication that you'd consider their view definitive. If you'd said "actually I'll argue with them too" I wouldn't have even bothered and I've had closed the thread then and there.

You are mistaken in your argument, and usually there's just no way to actually convince someone they are mistaken. I thought there was an opportunity to do so through DT and Ultima, a premise you seemingly agreed with, but that was mistaken.

The thread doesn't stay open perpetually with no agreements just because you want to argue forever with any staff member that will listen.

The spatial premise is in the OP, it wasn't brought up later.

Click to expand...

The people didn't notice it until it was brought up, so. And we are arguing one thing at a time.

You can discuss and argue with DT and Ultima, but the only reason I kept the thread open to call them was based on your indication that you'd consider their view definitive. If you'd said "actually I'll argue with them too" I wouldn't have even bothered and I've had closed the thread then and there.

Click to expand...

So its basically a call to shut down threads and prevent any sort of meaningful discussion? Okay.
And anyway I was asking a relevant question not calling them wrong or anything. So I don't know why you accused me of arguing.

And yes, votes decide the outcome of a thread.
The thread doesn't stay open perpetually with no agreements just because you want to argue forever with any staff member that will listen.

Click to expand...

I don't intend to perpetually keep it open and deal with an extremely long thread either. I too am busy with RL and hence respond sporadically.
Also, what you are saying is its basically a contest of votes like an election rather than a discussion reaching a conclusion? So we don't index stuff with a consensus but based on whatever we feel like, we just vote for it rather than discuss or clarify?

You are mistaken in your argument, and usually there's just no way to actually convince someone they are mistaken. I thought there was an opportunity to do so through DT and Ultima, a premise you seemingly agreed with, but that was mistaken.

Click to expand...

I could say the same for you. I had to literally call you out multiple times when you were misrepresenting me and the standards.
And currently DT and Ultima are talking about significant size standard so I am asking clarifications on that. Not on your misrepresentation of the bigger than 2-A FAQ.
Different things hence a different discussion.

I addressed it in my first response. Further it was not a call to "shut down meaningful discussion." The discussion had already happened, the votes were clear. No one, not even Glass or Planck, agreed with adding an extra spatial dimension. It was a call to see if we could resolve the disagreement through a disinterested third party whose views were being used by the opposition. It failed, so be it, but the discussion was conclude regardless.

You're free to continue holding to the belief that I misrepresented the FAQ, that the people who wrote it were wrong, that being called infinite when it contains 4D structures makes it Low 1-C. You are beyond convincing, so there's no point in continuing.

You are again resorting to misrepresenting me

The discussion had already happened, the votes were clear. No one, not even Glass or Planck, agreed with adding an extra spatial dimension. It was a call to see if we could resolve the disagreement through a disinterested third party whose views were being used by the opposition. It failed, so be it, but the discussion was conclude regardless.

Click to expand...

The discussion literally happened after the votes.

You're free to continue holding to the belief that I misrepresented the FAQ,

Click to expand...

U literally did and u even conceded on it, I am talking about the 2-A FAQ btw.

that the people who wrote it were wrong, that being called infinite when it contains 4D structures makes it Low 1-C.

Click to expand...

Did I call them wrong? Did I call the FAQ that they quoted wrong? Or did I simply ******* ask questions? Could u like not lie for once?

You are beyond convincing.

Click to expand...

That's just you tho. You'd rather lie and misrepresent than actually acknowledge you were wrong about the FAQ that you were quoting.

Where did I concede that, exactly?

Whether they agree or disagree with this thread and their arguments is another matter and they will have to evaluate it on their own terms. I however went ahead and asked both of them what does the FAQ mean with regards to infinite sized multiverse. Ultima responded clarifying that it is indeed talking about cardinality in that specific instance that you quoted. DT has yet to respond but I do believe he would say the same. In short, infinitely sized in the context of that FAQ simply means countably infinite number of universes in the multiverse and not the size of the space/container being infinite in size.

Click to expand...

Okay. I am prepared to seek their input

Click to expand...

Before this u were simply arguing about the FAQ meaning one thing and that I am just wrong about that specific FAQ so the whole thread needs to be closed.

I don't understand. What is the concession? I said okay?

U stopped arguing about that point from then on.
Trying not to be too obvious about it, which is okay.

Anyways where did I exactly start arguing with them, or called the FAQ wrong or them wrong, could you point out

Sorry, are you using the word "concede" to mean "stopped arguing?"

Anyways where did I exactly start arguing with them, or called the FAQ wrong or them wrong, could you point out

Click to expand...

As I said in my first response:
Instead you're saying "before I proceed" and preparing to make arguments against them, too, instead of conceding.
You hadn't yet began your argument, but you indicated that the purpose of your questioning was to proceed to one at some point.

Instead you're saying "before I proceed" and preparing to make arguments against them, too, instead of conceding.
You hadn't yet began your argument, but you indicated that the purpose of your questioning was to proceed to one at some point.

Click to expand...

Before I proceed to make any response I need to get the gist(the lengthier version). That's literally it. I need to understand what the standards exactly are and see if the arguments qualify or not in some way. In the end I am trying to index stuff, it might not be Low 1-C but it could be something else too, maybe or maybe nothing at all. I just wanted to reach a proper conclusion.

I need to understand what the standards exactly are and see if the arguments qualify or not in some way.

Click to expand...

The people that wrote the standards said the argument doesn't qualify, and they explained pretty well why they don't. Anything they didn't already say is covered sufficiently by the FAQ. The whole point of laying out the argument the way that I did and getting your agreement on it prior to providing it to them was so that it would be a quick simple question where they didn't need to get dragged into an arduous discussion with someone who won't take "no" for an answer.

Also, "concede" doesn't mean to stop arguing. It means to admit that the other person was right.

The people that wrote the standards said the argument doesn't qualify, and they explained pretty well why they don't. Anything they didn't already say is covered sufficiently by the FAQ. The whole point of laying out the argument the way that I did and getting your agreement on it prior to providing it to them was so that it would be a quick simple question where they didn't need to get dragged into an arduous discussion with someone who won't take "no" for an answer.

Click to expand...

So me asking some questions is taking no for an answer. So anyone that disagrees with you or any other person's take(that u agree with) is objectively wrong and they won't take no for an answer?
Idk why u have such a problem with me asking questions when I didn't refuse to acknowledge them at all. I am asking the specifics to index them appropriately. U simply close threads without having any sort of conclusion by any of the staff. U just need votes as an excuse to rush and close threads.
The fact that u have to resort to mischaracterize me as someone who wont take no for an answer and use that as an excuse to close the thread just because u disagree with me is worrying to say the least.

Also, "concede" doesn't mean to stop arguing. It means to admit that the other person was right.

Click to expand...

Ik what it means. You know I was right about that so u stopped arguing about it.