Calvin and Hobbes CRT

[DaMonkeMan]

^ Same

 

[Bobsican]

So it seems Deagonx and Mr. Bambu agree on this stuff not being indexable on the wiki, so the verse should be deleted at this point given the consensus.

 

[SlendVeny]

This is the funniest thread I have seen in a while.

 

[DaMonkeMan]

So it seems Deagonx and Mr. Bambu agree on this stuff not being indexable on the wiki, so the verse should be deleted at this point given the consensus.

Same guy who added mfing Barney to the wiki is adamant about removing Calvin and Hobbes

 

[Bobsican]

I mean, Barney has more direct proof of being real in-verse, unlike here

 

[Lou_change]

So it seems Deagonx and Mr. Bambu agree on this stuff not being indexable on the wiki, so the verse should be deleted at this point given the consensus.

A two person consensus while technically a consensus yes I don’t believe it warrants the deletion of the verse. Especially if their argument boils down to not thinking Hobbes is real. When there is intentional not a clear answer and we have characters that are fictional in verse and hypothetical keys

 

[Mr. Bambu]

A two person consensus while technically a consensus yes I don’t believe it warrants the deletion of the verse. Especially if their argument boils down to not thinking Hobbes is real. When there is intentional not a clear answer and we have characters that are fictional in verse and hypothetical keys

I think you're confusing argument for conclusion. Our arguments are actually pretty detailed up above.

That said, you're right, if Ant is adamant then it would warrant, I feel, at least a two-staff advantage. Another staff member should weigh in.

Just for funsies, @Crabwhale @Armorchompy @CrimsonStarFallen Do any of you have any strong opinions (its not a particularly important CRT so if you're busy, totes cool, yo)

 

[DaMonkeMan]

I mean, Barney has more direct proof of being real in-verse, unlike here

Bro he's a dude in a dinosaur costume I can't imagine anyone above the age of 12 thinking he would have anything worth indexing on the wiki

 

[Armorchompy]

The whole idea with Hobbes is that you can't tell if he's real or not. I question why you'd even have the verse but it's definitely not supposed to be "oh he's just a stuffed animal" or "oh there's something supernatural afoot", that takes away from the magic of it, Watterson's very consistently kept the stance that it's not really supposed to be either of the two.

I think it's fine to keep if that's the issue, we don't and can't know for sure he's just imagination.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

The whole idea with Hobbes is that you can't tell if he's real or not. I question why you'd even have the verse but it's definitely not supposed to be "oh he's just a stuffed animal" or "oh there's something supernatural afoot", that takes away from the magic of it, Watterson's very consistently kept the stance that it's not really supposed to be either of the two.

I think it's fine to keep if that's the issue, we don't and can't know for sure he's just imagination.

Watterson's words can most certainly be interpreted differently but very well, your voice is heard.

 

[Bobsican]

Bro he's a dude in a dinosaur costume I can't imagine anyone above the age of 12 thinking he would have anything worth indexing on the wiki

In lore he's just some mysterious doll found by kids in a garage that then wakes up as the dinosaur we know, he also states himself to be over 200 000 000 years old in one of his birthdays. How he's portrayed development-wise is irrelevant for our purposes as much we aren't dismissing stuff in series as just costumes or CGI and the like unless it's treated like so in-verse.

Watterson's words can most certainly be interpreted differently but very well, your voice is heard.

Given the mixed stance of the staff overall then, perhaps more staff input would be required?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

In lore he's just some mysterious doll found by kids in a garage that then wakes up as the dinosaur we know, he also states himself to be over 200 000 000 years old in one of his birthdays. How he's portrayed development-wise is irrelevant for our purposes as much we aren't dismissing stuff in series as just costumes or CGI and the like unless it's treated like so in-verse.


Given the mixed stance of the staff overall then, perhaps more staff input would be required?

I agree, but I pinged two others besides Armor. I don't really want to rally the horde for a damn Calvin and Hobbes CRT.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I can change my vote to neutral if it is necessary for this thread to reach a conclusion,

 

[Antvasima]

If the natural of his existence is debatable can't we can still index him with a note that explains while we aren't certain he is a figment of Calvin's imagine or not for the purpose of the profile we assume he is real it is intended to be left to interpretation after all.

However, before that, what do you all think about this solution?

 

[King_Dom470]

However, before that, what do you all think about this solution?

I’m still fine with that

 

[Lou_change]

Yes
Part of me wants to take Watterson's statements entirely literally meaning Hobbes has some kind of unique existence but that's a big power to give when it's likely the author who made the noodle incident just doesn't want to give an answer one way or the other

 

[Antvasima]

If the natural of his existence is debatable can't we can still index him with a note that explains while we aren't certain he is a figment of Calvin's imagine or not for the purpose of the profile we assume he is real it is intended to be left to interpretation after all.

Well, I currently think that this seems like the best compromise solution here.

 

[Lou_change]

Bump

 

[Lou_change]

Bump

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

Here's the current votes (staff are bolded):

Anything relevant is just Calvin's mundane imagination and thus the verse can't be indexed in lack of feats: @Bobsican, @Mr._Bambu, @Deagonx

Both ends are arguable and thus a note is merely added clarifying that there's a possibility of everything being Calvin's mundane imagination, but still are indexed as if everything was real beyond that: @Lou_change, @King_Dom470, @TheMonkeMan, @Greatsage13th, @Armorchompy, @Antvasima

I'd think some more discussion may be required here, including how to apply either end depending on what the staff thinks.

 

[Greatsage13th]

I'd agree with the latter

 

[King_Dom470]

Still agree with Lou change

“If the natural of his existence is debatable can't we can still index him with a note that explains while we aren't certain he is a figment of Calvin's imagine or not for the purpose of the profile we assume he is real it is intended to be left to interpretation after all.”

As antvisma already said this is probably the best compromise considering it’s meant to be purposefully ambiguous and up to the readers interpretation (which in turn makes either end basically impossible to prove) although watterson did say that there’s more to Hobbes than just being a stuffed animal. It makes the most sense to just put a note on both profiles saying what lou change suggested

 

[King_Dom470]

And based on some calcs I’ve recently done I can confirm that there are some stuff that shouldn’t be possible for a 6 year old to carry by himself

 

[AThe1412]

Agree with Lou_change. I know 2 other characters whose profiles assume that their feats are canon even though their stories make it clear that they are unreliable narrators and leave it vague about whether everything they did was real or not.

 

[Antvasima]

If the natural of his existence is debatable can't we can still index him with a note that explains while we aren't certain he is a figment of Calvin's imagine or not for the purpose of the profile we assume he is real it is intended to be left to interpretation after all.

I currently think that this seems like the best compromise solution here.

@DarkGrath @Celestial_Pegasus @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Maverick_Zero_X

What do you think about this?