• 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-purpose request thread (New forum)

Expectro2000xxx said:
Instead of change them they could just be added in parenthesis, similarly to how MHA characters have their hero name besides their actual name.
Click to expand...
Should redirect links to those pages be added from their monster identity names as well?
 
Np. Glad to help
:chaoctm:
 
Just_a_Random_Butler said:
I have deleted the page as requested, I have also taken the time to inform the new user about the existence of sandboxes for their future reference. Also, as a friendly reminder, your request is more fitting for the Profile Deletion Requests Thread.
Click to expand...
I know but i can never find the thread, I'm still not accustomed to navigating the forum that well
 
I'd like to request that my "Servant Scaling (Moon Cell) - Downgrade Proposal 2.0" get reopened. @CrimsonStarFallen seems to feel that all of my points have been brought up and debunked before, however, I don't agree with that. I feel that the thread was closed before being given the proper discussion it was due just because a few people disagreed with it. In addition, all of my scans come from a fairly reliable source (the TypeMoon wiki), and that wiki gives it's sources as well.

I have no problem with a Discussion Rule being made for this topic if my thread is truly debunked and enough people disagree after a genuine discussion. Until then, I would like my thread to be reopened. I don't feel that anything warrants closing it after only a few replies.
 
DaReaperMan said:
I mean... mate... ya literally used the Type/Moon wiki story summaries instead of scans from the actual stories for more then a few things.

I uh, I shouldn't need to say why using story summaries for some of your main arguments is never going to pass.
Click to expand...
I wasn't using the TM wiki for my arguments, I retroactively added in summaries from the TM wiki as scans because it's much faster to just go to the wiki. On top of that, the TM wiki is a reliable source. It also gives it's sources of information so there is no genuine reason to close the thread.

Also, "summary" or not, the information is correct. This is just a case of being nitpicky.
 
MaxLevel_King said:
I wasn't using the TM wiki for my arguments, I retroactively added in summaries from the TM wiki as scans because it's much faster to just go to the wiki. On top of that, the TM wiki is a reliable source. It also gives it's sources of information so there is no genuine reason to close the thread.
Click to expand...
Then get those sources directly from the material instead of bein' a lazy dweeb and just using the TM wiki! If you're gonna make a big ass cosmology/tier change I expect more effort to be put in then copy/pasting a wiki!

yes I understand it wasn't just that but common, man!
 
Atempts at downgrading Fate back into tiers below 3 have been atempted several, several times, ever since Fate became Low 2-C in like, 2018? 2019? Regardless, through all that time, all of the arguments have been stale and the exact same thing. Every point in your thread has been brought up a dozen times before and rejected a dozen times before.

This isn't me closing the thread due to a personal grievance with the thread itself or with you, or whatever. I'm seriously considering, and in fact, planning to make a thread about a discussion rule for stopping downgrade atempts tomorrow. I probably should have done this a long time ago, but it's massively overdue. Until then, it's probably best to keep those downgrade atempts closed. there's also an upgrade thread trying to get High 1-C Fate right now??? but honestly it's way too late for me to do that

Also, in regards to using wikis as sources: while pulling from them to get direct info or meta data on games, pulling plot summaries is not allowed, period. Those can still be easily influenced by biases, after all, and Type Moon wiki definetly isn't perfectly or always reliable. I still haven't found the source of their "Nero Chaos=Tiamat's Authority" claim, after all these years.
 
CrimsonStarFallen said:
Atempts at downgrading Fate back into tiers below 3 have been atempted several, several times, ever since Fate became Low 2-C in like, 2018? 2019? Regardless, through all that time, all of the arguments have been stale and the exact same thing. Every point in your thread has been brought up a dozen times before and rejected a dozen times before.

This isn't me closing the thread due to a personal grievance with the thread itself or with you, or whatever. I'm seriously considering, and in fact, planning to make a thread about a discussion rule for stopping downgrade atempts tomorrow. I probably should have done this a long time ago, but it's massively overdue. Until then, it's probably best to keep those downgrade atempts closed. there's also an upgrade thread trying to get High 1-C Fate right now??? but honestly it's way too late for me to do that

Also, in regards to using wikis as sources: while pulling from them to get direct info or meta data on games, pulling plot summaries is not allowed, period. Those can still be easily influenced by biases, after all, and Type Moon wiki definetly isn't perfectly or always reliable. I still haven't found the source of their "Nero Chaos=Tiamat's Authority" claim, after all these years.
Click to expand...
If you're going to make a discussion rule, make it after my thread has actually had a genuine discussion. Don't just close it before it truly becomes active and then decide to ban discussion on that topic because you feel that everything has been debunked (it hasn't - it's been rejected and I hope my arguments and reasoning will change that).

As for the TM wiki, I won't claim that it's perfect. However, it isn't unreliable either. Most of the information there is correct, and it gives it's sources for that information. You're treating it like an unreliable source when that simply isn't the case.

I would like to emphasize this point one more time; If you're going to make a discussion rule, please wait to do so until my thread has properly concluded. It's extremely unfair to close a downgrade CRT before it becomes active and arguments get fleshed out and then decide to create a discussion rule banning the topic. You can at least wait for it to be finished before making your move, can't you?
 
People are fatiged from arguing in these threads. Paul Frank, the dude responding to you, has arguied these points over a dozen times just last year, and only keeps doing it because if not him then who else other than me, and I've argued them a lot too.

Nothing is ever truly debunked, but there's no reason to believe this thread is going to change minds or whatever, because it evidently already didn't.

I'm really sorry for closing this thread in specific, but I need to do something about all these downgrade threads that eventually lead nowhere. Everyone's extremely of arguing this topic already, and it really would save a lot of free time that we are already losing as we get older anyway.
 
CrimsonStarFallen said:
I'm really sorry for closing this thread in specific, but I need to do something about all these downgrade threads that eventually lead nowhere. Everyone's extremely of arguing this topic already, and it really would save a lot of free time that we are already losing as we get older anyway.
Click to expand...
Everyone's extremely of arguing?

Whatever kind of drink that is I want one!
 
CrimsonStarFallen said:
People are fatiged from arguing in these threads. Paul Frank, the dude responding to you, has arguied these points over a dozen times just last year, and only keeps doing it because if not him then who else other than me, and I've argued them a lot too.

Nothing is ever truly debunked, but there's no reason to believe this thread is going to change minds or whatever, because it evidently already didn't.

I'm really sorry for closing this thread in specific, but I need to do something about all these downgrade threads that eventually lead nowhere. Everyone's extremely of arguing this topic already, and it really would save a lot of free time that we are already losing as we get older anyway.
Click to expand...
You don't close a thread on the basis of "there's no reason to believe this one will change anybody's mind", you close it once the thread itself has been debunked (which obviously, it hasn't). I don't know about your or Paul Frank's history of arguing against this topic, but again, banning the thread because "you're tired of it" isn't reasonable. I haven't even had the oppurtunity to fully argue my points, counter-points, and other reasoning. Furthermore, the thread hasn't even kicked off enough for you to claim that enough people have disagreed with it. Even in that short time-span, there was already someone who agreed with my post.

It's not like I don't understand where you're coming from, but again, there's no reason that it can't wait until after the thread has concluded. If all my thread truly is is just the culmination of a bunch of points that have been debunked before (which I don't agree with), then you can wait for this thread to properly be debunked as well before closing it and firmly banning this type of discussion. However, I would like this thread to be given the oppurtunity to allow more people to either agree or disagree with it as well as me having the chance to explain all my rebuttals to any counter-points being made before you carry on with that decision. If you're going to make a discussion rule once and for all, it shouldn't be a problem to let one last of these types of threads to flourish. If need be, my thread could even be used for reference as the last of these "same types of arguments" provided it gets debunked. However, I feel it hasn't. Ultimately, the fact is that this decision is up to you and any other moderator.

Edit: I was looking through some previous threads, and it's true that some of my points were brought up before (although I didn't doubt that). However, some of the arguments that were made in an attempt to downgrade the verse have nothing to do with mine. On top of that, some of the reasoning accepted as a debunk to similar points to mine in previous threads is outright wrong, ie Emiya Alter being Planetary because he destroyed the Shinjuku Meteor for example. That point being wrong probably doesn't make any sense here, but this isn't the place to debate that. That aside, I'm not attempting to downgrade the entire verse. Some Servants should keep their Low 1-C rating, but others shouldn't, and the ones that do I've already explained (should be prefaced with "Only in the Moon Cell").

Edit: I've said all I've needed to on this subject. I won't go out of my way to continue this discussion. Either my thread ends up getting reopened, or it doesn't. If it doesn't get reopened, then so be it.
 
Last edited:
Hello.
There is a slight predicament on a topic and I'd like some feedback/help on it.

Just recently, after a long process of data-collecting and calc-approving, the Hololive Production verse page was created alongside a handful of characters.
However, there is a problem. As it was pointed out in this thread, because the term "Hololive Production" refers to a company (more specifically a talent agency), the verse page cannot stay as is due to not being allowed in the rules, which is a rule I was unaware of. That was my bad.
I have no issue with things being changed accordingly, but here's where I'd like some feedback.

In real life, Hololive Production is a talent agency for VTubers. That agency has produced a number of properties, such as animated series, video games and manga featuring said VTubers as characters, and will continue to do so in the future. These properties share some of the same characters, but each entry is its own canon and each version of a same character is its own separate entity (similarly to how there are now separate profiles for the game-versions of Naruto characters on the Naruto verse page: manga-Naruto and game-Naruto are the "same character" but exist independently from each other in their own continuities).
Currently, the only property on the Hololive Production verse page is Holo no Graffiti, an animated series. In the future, the plan is to hopefully add more properties, such as manga or games. In preparation and anticipation of that, the current verse page was created to serve as an "umbrella" of sorts to all those properties, instead of creating a separate verse page for each property. Again, the reason this was done was because we will end up with multiple versions of the same character (for example, anime-Korone, horror-game-Korone and JRPG-Korone).
Essentially, Hololive Productions is split into multiple sub-verses.

Is that explanation and reasoning okay?
With that said, should the Hololive Production verse page be stripped of any company association? The tricky part, in my eyes (maybe I'm wrong and it's simple), is that the term "Hololive" refers to both the agency and to the group of VTubers/Idols itself, and it's not simple to disassociate the two.​
 
GoldenScorpions said:
Hello.
There is a slight predicament on a topic and I'd like some feedback/help on it.

Just recently, after a long process of data-collecting and calc-approving, the Hololive Production verse page was created alongside a handful of characters.
However, there is a problem. As it was pointed out in this thread, because the term "Hololive Production" refers to a company (more specifically a talent agency), the verse page cannot stay as is due to not being allowed in the rules, which is a rule I was unaware of. That was my bad.
I have no issue with things being changed accordingly, but here's where I'd like some feedback.

In real life, Hololive Production is a talent agency for VTubers. That agency has produced a number of properties, such as animated series, video games and manga featuring said VTubers as characters, and will continue to do so in the future. These properties share some of the same characters, but each entry is its own canon and each version of a same character is its own separate entity (similarly to how there are now separate profiles for the game-versions of Naruto characters on the Naruto verse page: manga-Naruto and game-Naruto are the "same character" but exist independently from each other in their own continuities).
Currently, the only property on the Hololive Production verse page is Holo no Graffiti, an animated series. In the future, the plan is to hopefully add more properties, such as manga or games. In preparation and anticipation of that, the current verse page was created to serve as an "umbrella" of sorts to all those properties, instead of creating a separate verse page for each property. Again, the reason this was done was because we will end up with multiple versions of the same character (for example, anime-Korone, horror-game-Korone and JRPG-Korone).
Essentially, Hololive Productions is split into multiple sub-verses.

Is that explanation and reasoning okay?
With that said, should the Hololive Production verse page be stripped of any company association? The tricky part, in my eyes (maybe I'm wrong and it's simple), is that the term "Hololive" refers to both the agency and to the group of VTubers/Idols itself, and it's not simple to disassociate the two.​
Click to expand...
Well, we occasionally allow company pages if that is that actual name for the shared verse in question as well, such as Marvel Comics for example.
 
Antvasima said:
Well, we occasionally allow company pages if that is that actual name for the shared verse in question as well, such as Marvel Comics for example.
Click to expand...
I was aware of that, yes. However, the way I interpreted what Mariogoods and the rule say is that company pages are an exception, like Disney or Nintendo.
However, if you're fine with the Hololive Production page staying this way, I won't complain, since it simplifies the process for the future.
For safety, I simply wanted to make sure it wasn't a nonconformity, but if it was, to fix it.
 
Well, if the verse in question has another prominent official title, it is probably better to use that instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AKM sama
New Staff Promotions
2
Replies
69
Views
7K
GarrixianXD
GarrixianXD
Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
12 13 14
Replies
521
Views
37K
Aolphl
Aolphl
Iamunanimousinthat
Commoner's Thread: All purpose staff thread to discuss any ongoing Staff Discussions
Replies
9
Views
2K
Iamunanimousinthat
Iamunanimousinthat
AKM sama
New Staff Promotions
2 3
Replies
82
Views
10K
AceSnowy
AceSnowy
Antvasima
I am taking a vacation
2
Replies
76
Views
8K
Zeinx1
Zeinx1
Back
Top