A Kirby topic

[Infinite]

Hello there. A while ago I came across a blog post that was pertaining to upgrade Kirby’s cosmology to Low 1-C. I’ve read it a few times. I just want to know was it talked about or was it denied or forgotten.

Understanding Kirby's Messy Cosmology: Low 1-C vs 2-C

vsbattles.fandom.com

Note: I’m not trying to upgrade Kirby. (Though having a Low 1-C Kirby would be cool)

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I have doubts about this.

 

[Eseseso]

Hello there. A while ago I came across a blog post that was pertaining to upgrade Kirby’s cosmology to Low 1-C. I’ve read it a few times. I just want to know was it talked about or was it denied or forgotten.

Understanding Kirby's Messy Cosmology: Low 1-C vs 2-C

vsbattles.fandom.com

Note: I’m not trying to upgrade Kirby. (Though having a Low 1-C Kirby would be cool)

We had MULTIPLE long and messy threads on this.

The vast majority of nonstaff (including me) agreed with it, but the staff vote was even so the thread went nowhere over the course of at least 1.5 years, so the thread ended up closed.

 

[Arceus0x]

I'd say to this day it makes sense but staff stonewall it hard and disagreed with it. Find it kinda cringe tbh.

 

[Eseseso]

I'd say to this day it makes sense but staff stonewall it hard and disagreed with it. Find it kinda cringe tbh.

I mean, considering Kirby has no real hax, it may have been a good thing that it was (wrongly) rejected since otherwise Kirby would be the weakest Low 1-C on the wiki.

 

[Infinite]

I mean, considering Kirby has no real hax, it may have been a good thing that it was (wrongly) rejected since otherwise Kirby would be the weakest Low 1-C on the wiki.

That’s an interesting and fair point. The potential is there but it needs that little push. I’m really hoping that the next (maybe few) Kirby games or even the spin-offs gives us some new hax (and maybe even some 2A statements. Maybe even feats? A guy has to dream lol.)

 

[Infinite]

I'd say to this day it makes sense but staff stonewall it hard and disagreed with it. Find it kinda cringe tbh.

Strange. I mean the evidence was given and he even pointed out how strict the wiki standards for Low 1-C are.

 

[Eseseso]

Strange. I mean the evidence was given and he even pointed out how strict the wiki standards for Low 1-C are.

Tell that to @Eficiente and @James_Plays_4_Games

 

[Eficiente]

It was a relatively complex topic to explain to the people agreeing with those stats, there were many things to explain to them, they would often forget what was told to them and use wrong beliefs to justify themselves being correct on a present topic. For example, James Plays 4 Games would quote some vague wording in the Tiering FQA to justify Low 1-C, I would explain that he grabbed things out of context, show him another quote that covers the same topic while being more clear about how everything works & thus disproves his argument, and he would just not understand and source his own quote again. I would tell him in a provable way that his sources on what he claims 次元 means are wrong, and he wouldn't understand.

When it came down to interpretation rather than things that can be cited, he would make wild interpretations of what was happening that I'm confident no person that I know would go with. Such as this visuals, which we don't know what they are, I said that they could be like 3 different things that I find reasonable, the more likely being a visualization of places inside realities on Another Dimension, yet James Plays 4 Games was 100% sure that this was proof of the realities being mere 2-D images next to Another Dimension, which requires him to take images of a single place as the whole timeline of where that place is, and take literally that they are 2-D images rather visualizations, blurry as they are.

So don't just say

I'd say to this day it makes sense but staff stonewall it hard and disagreed with it. Find it kinda cringe tbh.

I'm not gonna talk for the other staff, for me what happened there it's that the comments to defend the thread were very clearly wrong over and over, it was tiresome, everything that needed to explained was already said many times already, people was just forgetting about it or had such a strong need to talk about how they wanted things to be that they were repetitive about it, w/o the decency of expecting others to have read those arguments before & leave it at that. In turn, by acting as if they're not aware of things already told to them, it leads to things needing to be re-told, and so on.

Idk what you could possibly find cringe about it, from the side of agreeing with it. It's bad faith from my part but I believe you just say it because it wasn't approved and you feel bad about it.

You could technically say it was stonewalled in the sense that nobody was too excited to comment there, but it would be better for you to remember what really happened there in a more fair manner rather than remembering it as if they were wronged or something.

 

[Arceus0x]

I ain't reading allat

 

[Eseseso]

It was a relatively complex topic to explain to the people agreeing with those stats, there were many things to explain to them, they would often forget what was told to them and use wrong beliefs to justify themselves being correct on a present topic. For example, James Plays 4 Games would quote some vague wording in the Tiering FQA to justify Low 1-C, I would explain that he grabbed things out of context, show him another quote that covers the same topic while being more clear about how everything works & thus disproves his argument, and he would just not understand and source his own quote again. I would tell him in a provable way that his sources on what he claims 次元 means are wrong, and he wouldn't understand.

When it came down to interpretation rather than things that can be cited, he would make wild interpretations of what was happening that I'm confident no person that I know would go with. Such as this visuals, which we don't know what they are, I said that they could be like 3 different things that I find reasonable, the more likely being a visualization of places inside realities on Another Dimension, yet James Plays 4 Games was 100% sure that this was proof of the realities being mere 2-D images next to Another Dimension, which requires him to take images of a single place as the whole timeline of where that place is, and take literally that they are 2-D images rather visualizations, blurry as they are.

So don't just say

I'm not gonna talk for the other staff, for me what happened there it's that the comments to defend the thread were very clearly wrong over and over, it was tiresome, everything that needed to explained was already said many times already, people was just forgetting about it or had such a strong need to talk about how they wanted things to be that they were repetitive about it, w/o the decency of expecting others to have read those arguments before & leave it at that. In turn, by acting as if they're not aware of things already told to them, it leads to things needing to be re-told, and so on.

Idk what you could possibly find cringe about it, from the side of agreeing with it. It's bad faith from my part but I believe you just say it because it wasn't approved and you feel bad about it.

You could technically say it was stonewalled in the sense that nobody was too excited to comment there, but it would be better for you to remember what really happened there in a more fair manner rather than remembering it as if they were wronged or something.

Didn't @James_Plays_4_Games oppose the Low 1-C upgrade?

 

[Eficiente]

I actually don't remember that, but I meant in the context of the flow of that thread.

 

[Rose_of_Ragnarok]

It was a relatively complex topic to explain to the people agreeing with those stats, there were many things to explain to them, they would often forget what was told to them and use wrong beliefs to justify themselves being correct on a present topic. For example, James Plays 4 Games would quote some vague wording in the Tiering FQA to justify Low 1-C, I would explain that he grabbed things out of context, show him another quote that covers the same topic while being more clear about how everything works & thus disproves his argument, and he would just not understand and source his own quote again. I would tell him in a provable way that his sources on what he claims 次元 means are wrong, and he wouldn't understand.

When it came down to interpretation rather than things that can be cited, he would make wild interpretations of what was happening that I'm confident no person that I know would go with. Such as this visuals, which we don't know what they are, I said that they could be like 3 different things that I find reasonable, the more likely being a visualization of places inside realities on Another Dimension, yet James Plays 4 Games was 100% sure that this was proof of the realities being mere 2-D images next to Another Dimension, which requires him to take images of a single place as the whole timeline of where that place is, and take literally that they are 2-D images rather visualizations, blurry as they are.

So don't just say

I'm not gonna talk for the other staff, for me what happened there it's that the comments to defend the thread were very clearly wrong over and over, it was tiresome, everything that needed to explained was already said many times already, people was just forgetting about it or had such a strong need to talk about how they wanted things to be that they were repetitive about it, w/o the decency of expecting others to have read those arguments before & leave it at that. In turn, by acting as if they're not aware of things already told to them, it leads to things needing to be re-told, and so on.

Idk what you could possibly find cringe about it, from the side of agreeing with it. It's bad faith from my part but I believe you just say it because it wasn't approved and you feel bad about it.

You could technically say it was stonewalled in the sense that nobody was too excited to comment there, but it would be better for you to remember what really happened there in a more fair manner rather than remembering it as if they were wronged or something.

I feel you, mate.

I actually don't remember that, but I meant in the context of the flow of that thread.

It was actually Peptocoptr27. James disagreed with the upgrade, afaik.

 

[Eseseso]

It was actually Peptocoptr27. James disagreed with the upgrade, afaik.

This is correct.