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.
I consider Tilted's comments significantly more dire of the two, but he also isn't on the Warning Tracker yet so I'll settle for a warning.
Topaz has two warnings there and has had other discussions that didn't quite make it. That said, this particular instance seems tame- haughty, perhaps...
Entirely forgot about this.
It's been several days since the last comment prior to Firestorm's, it seems likely Ultima isn't coming. If he is (or if someone else is), he can just re-open it. Even with Firestorm's vote, the voting is significantly weighed enough towards Disagree to close...
(Also this appears to be one of those very fast moving threads, which I suppose I should have foreseen as an anime thing; don't expect me to reply rapidly to each message, as in spite of what wiki activity says, it is a lying bastard and I am not actively online currently)
It's not the bit directed at me, but still I feel compelled to state that the last bit is pure semantics. You can't heal an arm that isn't there and neither can you heal something that is dead: nevertheless, if it isn't passive, we would not call it Regeneration. We would call it Healing. That...
The argument is that the spell has to be cast before hand, as a sort of precaution that only activates upon the conditions being met (in this case, dying to High-Godly damage).
This argument is not mutually exclusive to the text provided: in fact, the phrasing of "automatically activated" seems...
Vaguely recall they were reported a week or two ago, seem to recall there being more evidence mentioned at the time but I don't recall it being brought forward. At the time it was pointed out that they weren't on the warning tracker, but that wasn't indicative of there not being precedent...
After a certain point, healing and resurrection are nigh identical, it just depends on whether the character it is applied to can be considered fully "dead", really. I'm fine with Resurrection, the point lay in semantics and thus doesn't interest me.
I feel like there's not much interpretation, but I mean "not passive".
Most healing abilities in fiction would be defined as Healing, then. Not Regeneration. We're not changing how the ability works, we're just giving it a more accurate moniker: this isn't Regeneration. I'm not familiar with...
Was asked to comment, seems clear enough. If it's a spell that actively needs to be used, it's Healing and should be listed as such. As with everything, it should be elaborated upon in the profile to explain the specifics as necessary.
Because it was mentioned in the suggestion. And... I guess? But it is resoundingly fan-made content. As fan-made as it gets, really. I'm not familiar with the "substance" requirements you guys are working on behind closed doors, that one just bore mentioning.
so the win condition is biting her at specifically her neck, then
I mean, still feel that's super unlikely, but I guess. Shall I also ignore the "thousands of duplicates" bit of the physiology page? The Immortality seems easily ignored given it relies on external facilities.
Incon, then...
would she really die from a small amount of damage like that? It's not like the single bite would crumble her entire structure, it just means that the Rust Monster can do more damage against metal even if it has greater durability. It doesn't spread, is my point.
I awoke about ten minutes ago to the proposition of a reject wiki. Ovens mentioned allowing things that are pornographic or racist (satirical or otherwise) in fundamental concept, I think that's a truly horrible idea but many of his other inclusions make a lot of sense: Skibidi Toilet (rejected...
this like
at best forces an incon, no?
this isn't true, by the way. "Weapon Focus" as a feat includes things like Bodily Weaponry. Hence how the weaponless Rust Monster has it and why it's classified as Martial Arts and not Weapon Mastery.
It's just good at fighting with its limbs.
anyways...
The premise for the mentioned game is that when you lose, your character is raped by monsters. He is an implicit child.
I'm against the notion of a sister wiki by default, but I would die on the hill of not allowing that shit.
It probably won't be a sandbox- they're discussing whether to move it to some copycat wiki willing to host it, or making a separate wiki for their purposes.
The Holders appears to be more or less a closed canon, with the website since deleted and archived. It should by all accounts be immune to the manipulation that SCP is vulnerable to.
RPC is essentially the same case as SCP, just without having reached the same level of severity yet. I would...
Could. I don't expect them to be open to lending much manpower on special assistance, but it's feasible that there might already be a solution made up.
So the options are:
Off-Fandom wiki, which sacrifices much of the use and ease in comparison with other options
An existent copycat wiki that's willing to take them on, with some concerns regarding wiki-specific content and, depending on the activity and nature of the copycat, perhaps some...
A more tenuous case. RPC has a level of likelihood of reaching the same scenario as SCP (albeit lessened in comparison). If that's the truth of the Holders, I'd be less opposed to it's continued presence.
(just gonna interject and say that while I did make VS Debating Wiki in 2016, it's not really "my site" and I haven't actively contributed to it since 2018, when I joined here as CGM; I'm not operating a competitor, however insignificant, to this place- I just own the skeleton of a wiki with...
Yeah, my knowledge on RPC is more limited but I've never heard of anything like the SCP situation happening here. Still, it is just as open to the same stuff. If we're codifying into rule something against this situation to begin with, RPC and similar verses would probably be toasted along with it.
I also considered unlocking, but I'd decided to do a separate thread since there may be different votes given RPC hasn't reached the point of SCP.
It's the same exact thing on principle and allowing it in the future, I feel, will at least likely lead to the same point. I see the two as being...
FC/OC formally rejected my request to put it there- I had asked before even posting the deletion thread, although they reiterated and explained their position in the thread.
I'm not sure we'll call it an official sister wiki. It's not going to be staffed by us formally.
I don't feel like really anybody did, and if they did they didn't mention it. It appears to me that if anything, the want for SCP writers to be separate has only further cemented the sentiment. Regardless, everyone who said they may want to vote later has the ability to re-open it. We can't just...
I suppose that's fitting. Theoretically there were staff who voiced an interest in speaking again (or at least that did not commit to a position one way or the other), but it's been quite some time and most are able to re-open it if it's desperately important, anyhow. The decision is fairly...