Anti Roshi Lowballing Rule - Rule addition to the DB Verse Page

[noninho]

Hello.

Since long ago we have seen some people, like @CiscoTheSoto recently, trying to gather the Dragon Ball knowledgeable members to think about the same topic again and again and again: Rediscuss Master Roshi's 5-C (or Moon) Level in his earlier keys.
The reasons why I advocate for us to create a rule impeding this to be done again are actually simple:

• it is more than notable that this topic is both argumented and contested by the same reasoning. Always.
• much spite/rage/whichever wording you prefer is being always present in every single instance of this topic.

We had for a while a rule for avoiding Naruto vs Bleach threads because of excessive heatness on them, we have a rule to this day to get something on the scaling of DC and Marvel, at our site's most visited section "Please avoid highly controversial topics." right at the top of it, and if you think thoroughly about those 3, there is no contesting that our site works by avoiding this type of situation, and ever more its repetition.
I call out for a note at the end of the page of Dragon Ball verse and Master Roshi's profile saying more or less (I say so encouraging changes to it, if seen fit):

There has been enough discussion about Master Roshi's 5-C rating in his earlier keys for it to be considered a controversial topic in our forum, therefore threads regarding changing it are not allowed.

Agree: OrangeFR, AwkguyDB, DarkDragonMedeus, Ednaxel2, Random-Helper323, XXBenShapiroXx, Eseseso, ByAsura, Nierre, GarrixianXD, Hasty12345, TheTenno07, RoninSlayer200, noninho, LephyrTheRevanchist

Neutral:

Disagree: Damage3245, KingTempest, Raiden38,

 

[OrangeFR]

Makes sense honestly.

 

[AwkguyDB]

agreed

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Agreed

 

[noninho]

Agreed

Since you understand more than me about the rules: is it fine to be with the wording I proposed?

 

[Ednaxel2]

I agree

 

[Random-Helper323]

Such rules are usually worded as something like "do not attempt to change this. It has been extensively discussed." Often with links to the threads in the rule.

The rule sounds fair if the discussion has become too heated and been done over so many times.

Still, some examples linked in the OP would help.

 

[Damage3245]

How many times has this topic actually been brought up in recent history? I think it's important to be clear whether or not this is an issue that actually warrants a rule, or if it is just a discussed topic that you're tired of hearing about.

For now I disagree with a rule being added until some evidence can be supplied.

Since long ago we have seen some people, like @CiscoTheSoto recently, trying to gather the Dragon Ball knowledgeable members to think about the same topic again and again and again: Rediscuss Master Roshi's 5-C (or Moon) Level in his earlier keys.

This is also not the case; the OP is being misleading. Cisco's thread was not about removing Master Roshi's 5-C rating.

 

[Random-Helper323]

That's a good point. I admit a small bias due to disliking all the past dismissals of Roshi's moon feat as an "outlier (pure abuse of mathematics and statistics)". He used to be considered City level.

So yeah, some examples of this issue in action would help a lot.

 

[XXBenShapiroXx]

How many times has this topic actually been brought up in recent history? I think it's important to be clear whether or not this is an issue that actually warrants a rule, or if it is just a discussed topic that you're tired of hearing about.

For now I disagree with a rule being added until some evidence can be supplied.



This is also not the case; the OP is being misleading. Cisco's thread was not about removing Master Roshi's 5-C rating.

This comment is actually misleading. They weren't referring to that thread as the one where Roshi's rating was trying to be removed. They used the term 'rediscuss' the rating.

Either way their point stands, as the intention of that thread was to remove people scaling to the Roshi moon bust, except for Roshi himself, which is still relevant here.

 

[Damage3245]

This comment is actually misleading. They weren't referring to that thread as the one where Roshi's rating was trying to be removed. They used the term 'rediscuss' the rating.

I don't think so? That thread doesn't re-discuss the 5-C rating for Roshi. It is a scaling thread for other characters.

Either way their point stands, as the intention of that thread was to remove people scaling to the Roshi moon bust, except for Roshi himself, which is still relevant here.

The new proposed rule doesn't make any mention at all for other characters, just Roshi himself:

There has been enough discussion about Master Roshi's 5-C rating in his earlier keys for it to be considered a controversial topic in our forum, therefore threads regarding changing it are not allowed.

 

[XXBenShapiroXx]

I don't think so? That thread doesn't re-discuss the 5-C rating for Roshi. It is a scaling thread for other characters.


The new proposed rule doesn't make any mention at all for other characters, just Roshi himself:

You are being obtuse. They referred to it as redicussing Roshi's moon bust, which is a feat at lot of people scale to, which I explicitly prefaced.

When people refer to Roshi moon bust, they almost are always also referring to the scaling it'd give other characters and the 5C rating as a whole. This is hair splitting.

This whole discussion and thread is reasonably about every aspect of roshi's moon bust, it being outlier, the rating, who scales to it, etc

 

[XXBenShapiroXx]

When they talk about Roshi's feat it's barely a jump in logic to assume they also reference the scaling other characters would get because if Roshi doesn't scale to it of course it'd affect them. This is a ridiculous attempt to dismiss a prime example of what the thread is referring to.

 

[Random-Helper323]

Was the issue that Roshi's bulked up state has an unknown power level relative to other characters?

 

[Damage3245]

You are being obtuse. They referred to it as redicussing Roshi's moon bust, which is a feat at lot of people scale to, which I explicitly prefaced.

When people refer to Roshi moon bust, they almost are always also referring to the scaling it'd give other characters and the 5C rating as a whole. This is hair splitting.

This whole discussion and thread is reasonably about every aspect of roshi's moon bust, it being outlier, the rating, who scales to it, etc

When we're discussing new rules to be added to the site, then I think being specific is valid and not obtuse at all.

Under the wording the proposed rule, there'd be no issue at all with anyone creating a thread to revise Tien's 5-C rating for example, since the rule only specifes Master Roshi.

 

[XXBenShapiroXx]

When we're discussing new rules to be added to the site, then I think being specific is valid and not obtuse at all.

Under the wording the proposed rule, there'd be no issue at all with anyone creating a thread to revise Tien's 5-C rating for example, since the rule only specifes Master Roshi.

Then ask for clarification or give a suggestion instead of disagreeing based of hair splitting, because that's not really helpfully or productive here.

 

[Eseseso]

Agree

 

[Damage3245]

Then ask for clarification or give a suggestion instead of disagreeing based of hair splitting, because that's not really helpfully or productive here.

I wasn't aware there was anything that needed clarifying so why would I ask?

And I'm not disagreeing because of the wording of the current rule, but because I don't think there's enough evidence that it is needed.

 

[XXBenShapiroXx]

I wasn't aware there was anything that needed clarifying so why would I ask?

And I'm not disagreeing because of the wording of the current rule, but because I don't think there's enough evidence that it is needed.

I mean I agree, there isn't anything that needs clarifying. Most people would hear Moon level Roshi and reasonably think that discussion includes every aspect of that, but here we are.

The second part is up for discussion, I think that's a silly thing to say, but that's not the crux of my issue with this type of arguements.

 

[noninho]

Under the wording the proposed rule, there'd be no issue at all with anyone creating a thread to revise Tien's 5-C rating for example, since the rule only specifes Master Roshi.

This is true only if you disregard every single supporter who will be talking about the chain and that no thread at all spoke only about, following your example, Tien or Goku.
It is always on why the Roshi feat is an outlier and/or PIS.
I am making a tiny research to answer your first question, but for starters and quite spoiling my point on it, see that if you throw into search "Roshi moon" here on the forum, the first relevant comment on the topic not only is from 2015 (validating my point that this is been talked about for many many years) but also that it's already calling it an outlier

"Canis_Latrans2: Master Roshi is Mountain level as the moon feat was an outlier right"

 

[ByAsura]

As I said in that thread, a discussion rule seems appropriate at this point.

 

[Damage3245]

It is always on why the Roshi feat is an outlier and/or PIS.
I am making a tiny research to answer your first question, but for starters and quite spoiling my point on it, see that if you throw into search "Roshi moon" here on the forum, the first relevant comment on the topic not only is from 2015 (validating my point that this is been talked about for many many years) but also that it's already calling it an outlier

I'll wait to see what your research yields.

 

[noninho]

Was the issue that Roshi's bulked up state has an unknown power level relative to other characters?

No
The issue always is that despite being quite the number of proofs that Roshi can blow up the moon, it is called an outlier, PIS, "should be disregarded", "should not affect the scaling chain" and it is been tiring and flame-inducing amongst DB supporters for many many years, backed up by, I believe, every single one of the active DB supporters this day, regardless of them agreeing or not with 5C Roshi.

How many times has this topic actually been brought up in recent history?

For starters, it is been brought up since 2015 (just noticed that the other link is wrong cuz it has text on it. Sorry and will be correcting it after posting this one), the last time was last month, and only by searching "roshi moon" here in the forum on the CRTs section, there are 14 pages of it, containing (I affirm easily, with 100% certainty that if checked by someone with more time than me and not in a bus, will be correct) more than 20 different threads speaking about the topic, and not all of them are DB, containing (again, easily) more than 10 that are completely not speaking about DB, just about "outliers", what this site considers valid and etc.
Considering there are 14 pages of direct mention of "Roshi moon" (and I am sure if you make other similar searches, results as validating will appear) across various threads, and if you ask every DB Supporter that was there last month I will certainly not be the only one that will comment on that undesirable company of a guy's video, and much less the only one who will be saying that they are tired of this, we can settle down that this is not only "I'm tired, ban this", but instead a topic that there is no need of, again, because the flame is generates by its repetition is not what we want in this site and its repetition is always based on the same arguments with even an incredible similarity in the wording.

This is also not the case; the OP is being misleading. Cisco's thread was not about removing Master Roshi's 5-C rating.

As people in this verse scale to this feat, established clearly in the 6 repetitive pages on the thread we mentioned and many, many, MANY, times on the last 9 years, it is basically that, yes.


I accept changes at the wording, yes, but the fundaments for the rule I propose have no part wrong, as can be amplily proven by any supporter of the verse.

 

[Random-Helper323]

The issue always is that despite being quite the number of proofs that Roshi can blow up the moon, it is called an outlier, PIS, "should be disregarded", "should not affect the scaling chain" and it is been tiring and flame-inducing amongst DB supporters for many many years, backed up by, I believe, every single one of the active DB supporters this day, regardless of them agreeing or not with 5C Roshi.

That entire outlier argument is dishonest across the board. Not just for Roshi, in general. Outlier data being excluded from results is based on statistics (you know, the real life practice used by actual professionals), where certain results can be omitted if they're the result of errors or problems. However, the outlier data isn't typically supposed to be removed unless it's the result of an error, otherwise the act of completely removing it is actually treated as corrupting or censoring the data.

So the entire practice of excluding outlier data solely for being different is treated as essentially censorship by the professional statisticians.

 

[Darkmon_cns]

That entire outlier argument is dishonest across the board. Not just for Roshi, in general. Outlier data being excluded from results is based on statistics (you know, the real life practice used by actual professionals working with billion-dollar budgets), where certain results can be omitted if they're the result of errors or problems. However, the outlier data isn't supposed to be removed unless it's the result of an error, otherwise the act of removing it is actually treated as corrupting or censoring the data.

So the entire practice of excluding outlier data solely for being different is treated as essentially censorship by the professional statisticians.

I mean mow.your aurging outliers shouldn't be used in vs debating at all which... is cancer

 

[Random-Helper323]

I mean mow.your aurging outliers shouldn't be used in vs debating at all which... is cancer

Outliers and inconsistencies are not the same thing. Outliers are feats that are just different, inconsistencies are contradicted by other information.

Aside from an ad hominem and citing of a horrible disease to liken me to, do you have anything to say?

 

[noninho]

I also would like to add that I plan on later today (I am still in my 2nd daily bus home and will be occupied there) will be putting some examples in OP, as per asked claiming it'd help

 

[noninho]

That entire outlier argument is dishonest across the board. Not just for Roshi, in general. Outlier data being excluded from results is based on statistics (you know, the real life practice used by actual professionals), where certain results can be omitted if they're the result of errors or problems. However, the outlier data isn't typically supposed to be removed unless it's the result of an error, otherwise the act of completely removing it is actually treated as corrupting or censoring the data.

So the entire practice of excluding outlier data solely for being different is treated as essentially censorship by the professional statisticians.

Couldn't get the relation of this with what I said at all, mate

 

[Nierre]

Definitely agree.

 

[Random-Helper323]

Couldn't get the relation of this with what I said at all, mate

Your issue is that people disregard the guy busting the moon and call him mountain level. They literally look at this guy who canonically busted the moon and say he can't bust the moon.

I am saying that people disregarding outlier data completely just for being different is considered to be invalidating the data. Here's a source on that which itself cites two sources.

 

[noninho]

Your issue is that people disregard the guy busting the moon and call him mountain level. They literally look at this guy who canonically busted the moon and say he can't bust the moon.

I am saying that people disregarding outlier data completely just for being different is considered to be invalidating the data. Here's a source on that which itself cites two sources.

Yeah, just didn't get your conclusion, if you agree with the rule or not with this argument

 

[Damage3245]

For starters, it is been brought up since 2015 (just noticed that the other link is wrong cuz it has text on it. Sorry and will be correcting it after posting this one), the last time was last month, and only by searching "roshi moon" here in the forum on the CRTs section, there are 14 pages of it, containing (I affirm easily, with 100% certainty that if checked by someone with more time than me and not in a bus, will be correct) more than 20 different threads speaking about the topic, and not all of them are DB, containing (again, easily) more than 10 that are completely not speaking about DB, just about "outliers", what this site considers valid and etc.
Considering there are 14 pages of direct mention of "Roshi moon" (and I am sure if you make other similar searches, results as validating will appear) across various threads, and if you ask every DB Supporter that was there last month I will certainly not be the only one that will comment on that undesirable company of a guy's video, and much less the only one who will be saying that they are tired of this, we can settle down that this is not only "I'm tired, ban this", but instead a topic that there is no need of, again, because the flame is generates by its repetition is not what we want in this site and its repetition is always based on the same arguments with even an incredible similarity in the wording.

Do you have a list of CRT's specifically on this topic? Being mentioned on other unrelated threads doesn't mean those threads have been actual arguments about it.

(just noticed you're busy. I'll look myself in a bit)

 

[Damage3245]

Okay, so I did my own research on this. I looked for any thread in the Content Revision section that had "Roshi" in the OP, and looked for any of them that involved affecting any of the statistics of early Dragon Ball characters.

• JCQ220's Dragon Ball Downgrade Thread - March 2017. A brief thread of which Roshi was only a small part of it. Quickly shut down.
• Jean_Pierre_kurosaki's Downplayed Goku Thread - December 2017. The user proposed that Kid Goku be upgraded to Moon level to match Roshi's feat, there was some back and forth over 4 pages where the conclusion at the time was that scaling for the other characters was inconsistent. So the thread wasn't applied.
• Lunacorva's Master Roshi destroying the moon was not an Outlier. Thread - February 2018. The user argues in favor of Master Roshi's feat not being an outlier. The thread only lasts a page.
• Mckmal5339's Proving Master Roshi's Moon Bust Was NOT A outlier Thread - May 2018. Another thread arguing Master Roshi's feat is not an outlier that again just lasted a page.
• NeoLunacorva's Looking at the Master Roshi moon feat again. Thread - January 2019. Yet another thread re-assessing Master Roshi's feat by the same user as earlier. Lasted a page before being rejected.
• Apex_Predator_GX's Goku DB Possible Upgrade to Moon level Thread - December 2019. A thread looking to upgrade Goku this time to Moon level, with Roshi's feat as support. This thread went nowhere.
• SomebodyData's Addressing Roshi's Feat Thread - November 2020. Master Roshi's Moon busting feat is finally accepted for his profile here after 15 pages of discussion.
• Vizer04's Chi-Chi should be 5-C Thread - July 2021. A proposal is raised to upgrade Chi-Chi to 5-C as well but it is rejected.
• Vizer04's Chi-Chi and Drum should be 5-C Thread - July 2021. A similar argument is given but it is rejected after a few pages.
• Frey6678's Tien large building level removal Thread - February 2023. A thread to change Tien's "Possibly 5-C" rating into a full 5-C rating. Looks like it went quiet instead of being applied.
• Frey6678's Roshi Upgrade Thread. - February 2023. A thread aiming to upgrade Roshi beyond baseline 5-C, but it was rejected.
• Damage3245's 22nd Budokai Downgrade Thread - August 2023. My own thread, aiming not to downgrade Roshi himself, but just the scaling of a few characters from that era of Dragon Ball. This one was accepted.
• TheYellowTopaz's Tien and co. back to 5-C Thread - August 2023. An upgrade thread seeking immediately to reverse the changes I had made with my downgrade thread. This thread was ultimately rejected.
• TheYellowTopaz's Tien and Co back to 5-C Version 2 Thread - January 2024. A thread once again seeking to upgrade those characters but this time with new arguments. This version was accepted.
• CiscoTheSoto's OG Dragon Ball 5-C Scaling to Roshi's Moon-Busting Feat Should be Removed - November 2024. This is the thread mentioned in the OP. It focuses once again on not trying to remove Master Roshi's 5-C feat, but the scaling for some of the characters to it. It was rejected.

So now that we've got a pretty thorough look at the history of this topic.... Where are the threads that would satisfy what the OP has asserted here?

The reasons why I advocate for us to create a rule impeding this to be done again are actually simple:

• it is more than notable that this topic is both argumented and contested by the same reasoning. Always.
• much spite/rage/whichever wording you prefer is being always present in every single instance of this topic.

Since Master Roshi's feat was actually accepted, there haven't been any major attempts to get it removed. At least not many that I could see in my search. There's been threads for other characters scaling, more often than not upgrades for the characters rather than trying to get something removed.

In fact going by the frequency of the threads prior to 2020, there would've been greater justification in adding a rule in preventing people from discussing Master Roshi's "outlier" feat as it was considered for so long.

Where is all the heated and controversial CRTs? Are you sure that this isn't being blown out of proportion by the fact that people might be complaining about the scaling in general discussion threads, and that there isn't actually a huge history of threads seeking to remove the feat?

@DarkDragonMedeus @ByAsura Would either of you consider based on this that there hasn't actually been a massive amount of controversial proposals for the topic and that it doesn't necessarily warrant a Discussion Rule? Almost all the threads I've listed there don't support the OP's argument.

 

[XXBenShapiroXx]

Okay, so I did my own research on this. I looked for any thread in the Content Revision section that had "Roshi" in the OP, and looked for any of them that involved affecting any of the statistics of early Dragon Ball characters.

• JCQ220's Dragon Ball Downgrade Thread - March 2017. A brief thread of which Roshi was only a small part of it. Quickly shut down.
• Jean_Pierre_kurosaki's Downplayed Goku Thread - December 2017. The user proposed that Kid Goku be upgraded to Moon level to match Roshi's feat, there was some back and forth over 4 pages where the conclusion at the time was that scaling for the other characters was inconsistent. So the thread wasn't applied.
• Lunacorva's Master Roshi destroying the moon was not an Outlier. Thread - February 2018. The user argues in favor of Master Roshi's feat not being an outlier. The thread only lasts a page.
• Mckmal5339's Proving Master Roshi's Moon Bust Was NOT A outlier Thread - May 2018. Another thread arguing Master Roshi's feat is not an outlier that again just lasted a page.
• NeoLunacorva's Looking at the Master Roshi moon feat again. Thread - January 2019. Yet another thread re-assessing Master Roshi's feat by the same user as earlier. Lasted a page before being rejected.
• Apex_Predator_GX's Goku DB Possible Upgrade to Moon level Thread - December 2019. A thread looking to upgrade Goku this time to Moon level, with Roshi's feat as support. This thread went nowhere.
• SomebodyData's Addressing Roshi's Feat Thread - November 2020. Master Roshi's Moon busting feat is finally accepted for his profile here after 15 pages of discussion.
• Vizer04's Chi-Chi should be 5-C Thread - July 2021. A proposal is raised to upgrade Chi-Chi to 5-C as well but it is rejected.
• Vizer04's Chi-Chi and Drum should be 5-C Thread - July 2021. A similar argument is given but it is rejected after a few pages.
• Frey6678's Tien large building level removal Thread - February 2023. A thread to change Tien's "Possibly 5-C" rating into a full 5-C rating. Looks like it went quiet instead of being applied.
• Frey6678's Roshi Upgrade Thread. - February 2023. A thread aiming to upgrade Roshi beyond baseline 5-C, but it was rejected.
• Damage3245's 22nd Budokai Downgrade Thread - August 2023. My own thread, aiming not to downgrade Roshi himself, but just the scaling of a few characters from that era of Dragon Ball. This one was accepted.
• TheYellowTopaz's Tien and co. back to 5-C Thread - August 2023. An upgrade thread seeking immediately to reverse the changes I had made with my downgrade thread. This thread was ultimately rejected.
• TheYellowTopaz's Tien and Co back to 5-C Version 2 Thread - January 2024. A thread once again seeking to upgrade those characters but this time with new arguments. This version was accepted.
• CiscoTheSoto's OG Dragon Ball 5-C Scaling to Roshi's Moon-Busting Feat Should be Removed - November 2024. This is the thread mentioned in the OP. It focuses once again on not trying to remove Master Roshi's 5-C feat, but the scaling for some of the characters to it. It was rejected.

So now that we've got a pretty thorough look at the history of this topic.... Where are the threads that would satisfy what the OP has asserted here?


Since Master Roshi's feat was actually accepted, there haven't been any major attempts to get it removed. At least not many that I could see in my search. There's been threads for other characters scaling, more often than not upgrades for the characters rather than trying to get something removed.

In fact going by the frequency of the threads prior to 2020, there would've been greater justification in adding a rule in preventing people from discussing Master Roshi's "outlier" feat as it was considered for so long.

Where is all the heated and controversial CRTs? Are you sure that this isn't being blown out of proportion by the fact that people might be complaining about the scaling in general discussion threads, and that there isn't actually a huge history of threads seeking to remove the feat?

@DarkDragonMedeus @ByAsura Would either of you consider based on this that there hasn't actually been a massive amount of controversial proposals for the topic and that it doesn't necessarily warrant a Discussion Rule? Almost all the threads I've listed there don't support the OP's argument.

Don't accuse people of blowing things out of proportion. It's dishonest.

75% of the threads you listed were from the time period when this site was fcking dumb and considered the Roshi moon feat an outlier, and that fact that shit went on as long as it did and took so long to rightfully rectify by itself is more than enough justification imo.

'Oh they could've had the justification for a discussion rule back then' And? They were already being dumb as shit, how would them doubling down on that debunk anything going on here.

We've already established how the hair splitting of 'they aren't trying to remove Roshi's scaling so I can handwave it away' does not at all address the larger picture of this discourse or why this thread is being made, so I won't address it again. It's a weak line of argumentation.

Since the Roshi scaling got accepted, we had two failed upgrades, one downgrade, one downgrade reversal that failed, and one that succeeded. Then recently we had another attempted downgrade that didn't go through.

So after years of exhaustive arguements about getting it accepted to begin with, we've had to deal with a controversial hotly contested downgrade, then failed reverse downgrade, then a successful reversal, then another failed downgrade.

Seems like that's a pretty rigid back and forth to me for a discussion that hasn't had anything new brought to the table in years, rather just formulate things we do know differently.

This reasoning is either as misleading as the very first accusation lobbed at OP, or just reductive and obtuse to make what threads you did find somehow back up your stance.

 

[ByAsura]

@DarkDragonMedeus @ByAsura Would either of you consider based on this that there hasn't actually been a massive amount of controversial proposals for the topic and that it doesn't necessarily warrant a Discussion Rule? Almost all the threads I've listed there don't support the OP's argument.

I feel the OP's reasoning is still applicable; it happens very frequently relative to similar discussions, and it's often the exact same argumentation.

It'd save enough time and effort a discussion rule is probably worth it.

 

[Damage3245]

Don't accuse people of blowing things out of proportion. It's dishonest.

In your judgement maybe, I don't think it's dishonest.

75% of the threads you listed were from the time period when this site was fcking dumb and considered the Roshi moon feat an outlier, and that fact that shit went on as long as it did and took so long to rightfully rectify by itself is more than enough justification imo.

'Oh they could've had the justification for a discussion rule back then' And? They were already being dumb as shit, how would them doubling down on that debunk anything going on here.

The OP first brought up the issue going back as far as 2015, so I wanted to be thorough and included those threads too.

If you focus on just the threads that happened after the feat was accepted, then it supports my point further than it isn't a frequent topic.

We've already established how the hair splitting of 'they aren't trying to remove Roshi's scaling so I can handwave it away' does not at all address the larger picture of this discourse or why this thread is being made, so I won't address it again. It's a weak line of argumentation.

The rule needs to be reworded then. It's not hair splitting to be actually accurate.

If the issue is people keep trying to remove Roshi's 5-C rating which is what the rule suggests, then it needs to be looked at whether this is actually an issue and I've shown it isn't.

If the issue is actually "No Dragon Ball character should have their 5-C ratings touched" then that's what the rule needs to cover.

Since the Roshi scaling got accepted, we had two failed upgrades, one downgrade, one downgrade reversal that failed, and one that succeeded. Then recently we had another attempted downgrade that didn't go through.

So after years of exhaustive arguements about getting it accepted to begin with, we've had to deal with a controversial hotly contested downgrade, then failed reverse downgrade, then a successful reversal, then another failed downgrade.

Seems like that's a pretty rigid back and forth to me for a discussion that hasn't had anything new brought to the table in years, rather just formulate things we do know differently.

So seven threads over the course of 4 years? That's not a huge amount of controversial threads for early Dragon Ball characters, especially with most of them not actually being about removing the character's scaling.

This reasoning is either as misleading as the very first accusation lobbed at OP, or just reductive and obtuse to make what threads you did find somehow back up your stance.

I don't think it's misleading at all to point out that this isn't a frequently contested issue with it having a grand total of 2 threads about it in this whole year.

I feel the OP's reasoning is still applicable; it happens very frequently relative to similar discussions, and it's often the exact same argumentation.

It'd save enough time and effort a discussion rule is probably worth it.

Same argumentation? How many threads on this topic have the same arguments?

 

[XXBenShapiroXx]

In your judgement maybe, I don't think it's dishonest.


The OP first brought up the issue going back as far as 2015, so I wanted to be thorough and included those threads too.

If you focus on just the threads that happened after the feat was accepted, then it supports my point further than it isn't a frequent topic.


The rule needs to be reworded then. It's not hair splitting to be actually accurate.

If the issue is people keep trying to remove Roshi's 5-C rating which is what the rule suggests, then it needs to be looked at whether this is actually an issue and I've shown it isn't.

If the issue is actually "No Dragon Ball character should have their 5-C ratings touched" then that's what the rule needs to cover.


So seven threads over the course of 4 years? That's not a huge amount of controversial threads for early Dragon Ball characters, especially with most of them not actually being about removing the character's scaling.


I don't think it's misleading at all to point out that this isn't a frequently contested issue with it having a grand total of 2 threads about it in this whole year.



Same argumentation? How many threads on this topic have the same arguments?

You are purposely missing the bigger picture the threads from before paint, which is why I brought up how you can't ignore them after bringing them up.

We've already agreed the rules need to be reworded, and you didn't at all address the meat of my arguement against your line of reasoning used in the attempt to handwave examples because they don't meet your hyper specific standards when everyone else would consider every aspect of the discussion. We are going to change the wording, move on.

You haven't shown this isn't an issue at all. You've just used reductive phrasing and tip toed around the full history of this discussion to pretend like it isn't.

So seven threads in four years after years and years of this literally being the biggest controversy in site history, yeah, I think that warrants a discussion. You phrasing it like that, removing the full context around it, then bolding the text as if thats somehow unreasonable doesn't suddenly make disprove the point.

You keep trying to further narrow the time frame so there are less examples to pull from, first it was from 2015, then it went to 2020, now it's in the last year. Stop cherry picking.

And it doesn't matter if the threads went through or not, a thread was made trying to **** with the 5C scaling regardless. It it worked or not is totally irrelevant.

So yes, all of this is just hair splitting by either changing goal posts or just being obtuse with what constitutes examples.

 

[GarrixianXD]

I also agree with a discussion rule.

 

[Damage3245]

We've already agreed the rules need to be reworded, and you didn't at all address the meat of my arguement against your line of reasoning used in the attempt to handwave examples because they don't meet your hyper specific standards when everyone else would consider every aspect of the discussion. We are going to change the wording, move on.

Apologies, I missed nohino's post earlier in the thread saying he'd be open to changing the wording.

So seven threads in four years after years and years of this literally being the biggest controversy in site history, yeah, I think that warrants a discussion. You phrasing it like that, removing the full context around it, then bolding the text as if thats somehow unreasonable doesn't suddenly make disprove the point.

You keep trying to further narrow the time frame so there are less examples to pull from, first it was from 2015, then it went to 2020, now it's in the last year. Stop cherry picking.

And it doesn't matter if the threads went through or not, a thread was made trying to **** with the 5C scaling regardless. It it worked or not is totally irrelevant.

So yes, all of this is just hair splitting by either changing goal posts or just being obtuse with what constitutes examples.

It's not changing the goalposts. I'm trying to show you that by any goalpost - by any metric - it's not what I would personally consider to be a frequent, controversial issue.

I can't speak for anyone else's standards of course. I'm just showing my viewpoint, with the research to back it up.

 

[XXBenShapiroXx]

Apologies, I missed nohino's post earlier in the thread saying he'd be open to changing the wording.



It's not changing the goalposts. I'm trying to show you that by any goalpost - by any metric - it's not what I would personally consider to be a frequent, controversial issue.

I can't speak for anyone else's standards of course. I'm just showing my viewpoint, with the research to back it up.

I've said all I'm going to atp. Going to leave it up to the admins atp