- 29,532
- 24,346
What on Earth happened to this being "STAFF ONLY"?
-
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.
All of Dragon Ball Cosmology revision (STAFF ONLY)
- Thread starter Zamasu_Chan
- Start date
- Status
- 9,952
- 1,998
I guess he means that, since time travel its a crime or divine magnitude, Gods aren't allowed to time travel, so the universes can't be a splitted timeline, as moving from one to another would involve time travel.
- 827
- 171
That's wrong the multiverse has different timeline in different universes going from one universe to the other isn't in any way time travel. They aren't going to a different moment/period in time.
- 9,952
- 1,998
Welp, I recall someone using the fact that there's saiyan and namekians in other universe as proof of "alternative timeline" or something, but at this point that argument may have been dropped at this point.
- 15,478
- 10,278
Wasnt this Staff only?
- 164,926
- 71,600
@Goldenchimchar
Given that your only contributions to this community so far seem to be to repeatedly make useless posts without allowance in a staff only thread, and strictly being rude and insulting to a senior staff within those post, you are very close to getting banned, unless you drastically improve your behaviour from now onward.
Given that your only contributions to this community so far seem to be to repeatedly make useless posts without allowance in a staff only thread, and strictly being rude and insulting to a senior staff within those post, you are very close to getting banned, unless you drastically improve your behaviour from now onward.
Last edited:
- 9,952
- 1,998
It should be. I'm here I was asked to do so.
- 164,926
- 71,600
Yes, all non-staff (or retired staff) posts should cease from now onwards unless they have something very insightful to say.
- 11,059
- 13,749
That explanation would have worked only when there was any undeniable evidence in the first place. You can't use backwards logic where you assume the highest rating and then use excuses and leaps in logic to "explain" why it would work under very specific conditions. Your biggest mistake is to assume that the "evidence" you provided is undeniable, because it is not.
A self-contradicting guidebook that speaks about literal four galaxies cannot be taken literally when it says the opposite. It is questionable and not nearly enough to argue against the blatant finite depiction of the universe in every canon source.
- 9,222
- 3,365
whats left to even discuss here? low 1-c dbh?
- 164,926
- 71,600
Preferably yes, but the thread keeps derailing into areas that have already been rejected.
- 8,821
- 9,402
- Thread starter
- #332
Honestly, I think closing this is the best option. Throughout the debate I pointed out a flaw in the tiering system but that should warrant an entirely new thread. It’s not like anyone paid attention to it anyway.
I’m a little disappointed but not surprised how this thread turned out. This was supposed to be a tame discussion but nobody knows how to behave in a DB thread. I don’t have it in me to respond anymore.
I’ll tackle this another time when I get my gripes out of the way. @Antvasima can you close this?
I’m a little disappointed but not surprised how this thread turned out. This was supposed to be a tame discussion but nobody knows how to behave in a DB thread. I don’t have it in me to respond anymore.
I’ll tackle this another time when I get my gripes out of the way. @Antvasima can you close this?
- 827
- 171
That doesn't make it an alternate timeline it just makes it a mirror universe with different history.
- 164,926
- 71,600
I am not sure if I remember the flaw in our system that you pointed out. Was it that the separation of 3-A and Low 2-C is causing problems at times, or that universal space-time continuums should count as Low 2-C even without being stated to be timelines?
- 8,821
- 9,402
- Thread starter
- #335
Uhh, something like that but I’ll explain more when I make it.
- 1,078
- 338
Thats kinda self contradictory don't you think so?! You said it can "only" be considered AS finite & now you are saying "assume the highest Rating" Ok
Next is "leaps in logic" I am not leaping you are actually leaping & using fallacies like I said
I am not using any backword logic & the guide isn't self contradictory based on point which is a mistranslation in fact since there are four kaios rule over four galaxy quadrants of universe the Kanji also means both
Also that doesnt contradict anything since quadrants can be infinite as well infinite ÷ 4 is infinite think this logically
There are other explanations other than this that the guide isnt self contradictory infact it is called as "untarnished truthtruth"
You cant use circular Arguments & going back & forth based on a mistranslation
- 164,926
- 71,600
Well, you need to make it into a staff only thread if it concerns possible modifications to our system.
- 8,821
- 9,402
- Thread starter
- #338
Absolutely. I’ll notify you when I make it.
- 8,821
- 9,402
- Thread starter
- #341
It should be closed.
- 29,786
- 30,621
I suppose this should be closed than if the OP agrees too.
- 11,059
- 13,749
Except no. This is the only thing that admittedly made me heated during the start of this thread. I apologize for it, but we seriously need to adhere to the discussion rules. Why are none of the staff members who participated in previous DB threads here? Ever wondered? Because they are tired of the same arguments brought up every time thread after thread. It's just that I give a damn to comment.
This seriously needs to stop and people need to learn to accept and move on. If something is rejected, you can't just rehash the same points and present it in a different way to make them "new arguments" when all you're doing is bringing up old scans and old information and then using them to make excuses for why it should all work. And no, the tactic of sprinkling new stuff about Low 1-C tier discussion with old stuff just so the thread doesn't instantly gets closed won't work next time, it's just a way to get around the discussion rule. This practice of "I'll just make another thread later because my current thread got rejected, I am not satisfied and I refuse to give up" needs to stop.
If you are talking strictly about your gripes with tiering system about the differences in 3-A and Low 2-C, then ignore my comment because I am open for that discussion.
Talking about different things. Former is from canon sources only, latter comes from a guide that is questionable in that regard.
Yes because we will cherrypick and call the instance where the guide clearly says four kaios for "each" galaxy as mistranslation, even when the alternate translation doesn't work in that context, but we will obviously not check the translations for the words infinite and take them literally.
Don't know what you are talking about here as I don't see why this is relevant to what I said. I was talking about the portrayal of universes in canon sources, and you can't use backwards logic to first assume they are infinite and then explain why it wouldn't contradict anything, because to do that, you require undeniable evidence in the first place. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Yes, this shows just how much you read the blog yourself. The statement is talking about secret stories and inside scoops coming directly from Toriyama. That is referring to his interviews that are present in every volume of Daizenshuu. What he says is "untarnished truth". It's a known fact that the Daizenshuu itself has minimal contribution from Toriyama, he said so himself and thanks the fans who put it together in an interview.
I told you this before, the thread should have been closed long ago. As for the Low 1-C Xeno/Heroes issue, the net result of this thread as far as changes in the DB cosmology is concerned, is zero. So nothing changes for the games as a result of this thread.
- 164,926
- 71,600
I strongly agree with the above point.
Okay. No problem.
Anyway, feel free to close this thread then.
- 29,532
- 24,346
Since the consensus seems to be to close the thread, I'll take care of that now.
- Status
Similar threads
