Discussing IRL Human standards for the Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal & the like

[Antvasima]

Can you remind me what the listed staff members agree or disagree with please?

 

[H3110l12345I20]

bump

[*]Agree: Antvasima, me, Flashlight237 (Neanderthal's stay), Agnaa (as long as the rules could accomodate such pages)
[*]Disagree: Crabwhale, DarkDragonMedeus, Flashlight237 (Cro-magnon's removal)
[*]Neutral: N/A

So the pages are going to be kept by quantity, but quality of arguements wise, I'd have to reread the thread or everyone here has to come to a consensus.

Already did this.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, but that is not what I asked. Which members think what here exactly?

 

[H3110l12345I20]

TL; DR: look at the titles of the first level spoilers.

Spoiler: Agree with keeping the profiles

Spoiler: Flashlight237

I've said all I needed to say, although I think I'll change my stance to "for Cro-Magnon's removal, against Neanderthal's removal".

As a real-life supporter, technically Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon people are okay here (neanderthals more so since I feel Cro-Magnons might be a little too close, idk). I mean they same just as much of our DNA as chimpanzees (our closest living relatives) do if I recall correctly. That and unlike us humans who are largely capable of tasks such as, well, making this website, Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon people were largely animalistic in the same way Chimpanzees are. Can't say we've really assessed the abilities of either, however.

Spoiler: Agnaa

I don't particularly care whether this is established through a footnote, or by modifying the rule about profiles for humans.

Spoiler: Antvasima

Well, they were real, but they are also not currently living or specifically singled out individuals, so I personally do not consider it a significant problem to keep the pages in question.

Spoiler: Me

I think everyone here just overlooked something. The rules state REAL-world people. Do we consider extinct animals/hominids as real entities by definition?

For now, I'll side no, when we say extinct, we mean they ONCE existed. Now they don't. That's what my common sense says.

Now, Antvasima, what does the staff think of this notable point? There's a chance that the pages may stay & that we just have to put a note on there. Although conversely, since they're mentally comparable, could they be as subjected to the "no real human profiles" rule as any other profile?

Spoiler: Disagree with keeping the profiles

Spoiler: Crabwhale

Too much replies. Long story short, he thinks that Cro-magnons & Neanderthals are real people. He also mentions the unwritten rule of the profiles as "they're spritually supposed to be superpowers."

Which I get the premise of the latter, but I don't understand at the same time.

Spoiler: DDM

I'm in the same boat as Crabwhale.

Spoiler: Flashlight

I've said all I needed to say, although I think I'll change my stance to "for Cro-Magnon's removal, against Neanderthal's removal".

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Since the staff consensus seems to be split here, I suppose that we will either have to keep the pages as they are or reach a compromise solution then.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

bump. If I'm the only one doing the heavy lifting here, then I'll need to think of a compromising solution in a couple of days.

 

[Antvasima]

Probably yes. Sorry about that.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

I mean, Crabwhale doesn't have a counterargument to my claim of how the hominids aren't real people anymore since they no longer exist & are extinct. And he pretty much felt like he said what he needed to say even though there's evidence to the contrary. But CRTs typically take awhile anyways.

But I'll compromise anyway. Since we’re split on keeping both profiles, why don’t we just delete the cro-magnon profile and then leave a note on how the Neanderthal still staying on-site on it's profile?

Out of the countless stories humans can make, there’s bound to be one with normal neanderthal physical attributes. I can’t as easily say the same thing with the Cro-magnon, since it’s a a step closer to us. We can slap a “comparable to Neanderthals” if we have realistic depictions of cavemen/hunter-gatherers in fiction.

 

[Flashlight237]

I mean, Crabwhale doesn't have a counterargument to my claim of how the hominids aren't real people anymore since they no longer exist & are extinct. And he pretty much felt like he said what he needed to say even though there's evidence to the contrary. But CRTs typically take awhile anyways.

But I'll compromise anyway. Since we’re split on keeping both profiles, why don’t we just delete the cro-magnon profile and then leave a note on how it’s still staying on-site?

Out of the countless stories humans can make, there’s bound to be one with normal neanderthal physical attributes. I can’t as easily say the same thing with the Cro-magnon, since it’s a a step closer to us. We can slap a “comparable to Neanderthals” if we have realistic depictions of cavemen/hunter-gatherers in fiction.

Yeah, that works fine.

 

[Antvasima]

But I'll compromise anyway. Since we’re split on keeping both profiles, why don’t we just delete the cro-magnon profile and then leave a note on how it’s still staying on-site?

Please elaborate. Do you want us to delete our cro-magnon profile page or keep it with a new added footnote?

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Please elaborate. Do you want us to delete our cro-magnon profile page or keep it with a new added footnote?

I meant delete the cro-magnon profile and Neanderthal profile by the it part. I'll update the post to make miscommunication less likely.

 

[Antvasima]

I mean, Crabwhale doesn't have a counterargument to my claim of how the hominids aren't real people anymore since they no longer exist & are extinct. And he pretty much felt like he said what he needed to say even though there's evidence to the contrary. But CRTs typically take awhile anyways.

But I'll compromise anyway. Since we’re split on keeping both profiles, why don’t we just delete the cro-magnon profile and then leave a note on how the Neanderthal still staying on-site on it's profile?

Out of the countless stories humans can make, there’s bound to be one with normal neanderthal physical attributes. I can’t as easily say the same thing with the Cro-magnon, since it’s a a step closer to us. We can slap a “comparable to Neanderthals” if we have realistic depictions of cavemen/hunter-gatherers in fiction.

@Agnaa @DarkDragonMedeus @LordGriffin1000 @Crabwhale @Qawsedf234 @Firestorm808

What do you think about this?

 

[Crabwhale]

I mean, Crabwhale doesn't have a counterargument to my claim of how the hominids aren't real people anymore since they no longer exist & are extinct.

I don't have a counterargument because that's not all my angle for why they should be deleted. My angle relies on them being insufficiently different from modern humans to even deserve their own profile. If you want an example of their capabilities, all you have to do is look at the Attack Potency, Lifting Strength, Striking Strength, Durability, Intelligence, etc. pages.

And he pretty much felt like he said what he needed to say even though there's evidence to the contrary. But CRTs typically take awhile anyways.

I will not repeat what I said in regards to human physical strength. I have presented my case and I believe it solid. I do not consider myself an expert on the matter, but I know enough I'd say to state with definite claim, that this is the strongest period in human history. No human beings in existence have achieved the level of physical strength we are displaying at the top level now. They almost certainly were much stronger on average compared to our population, but in regards to our peak human standards, not even close.

That is my final word.

 

[Antvasima]

So what should we do here then?

 

[H3110l12345I20]

I will not repeat what I said in regards to human physical strength. I have presented my case and I believe it solid. I do not consider myself an expert on the matter, but I know enough I'd say to state with definite claim, that this is the strongest period in human history. No human beings in existence have achieved the level of physical strength we are displaying at the top level now. They almost certainly were much stronger on average compared to our population, but in regards to our peak human standards, not even close.

That is my final word.

I understand that we have far more capabilities than our ancestors, our ancestors were naturally athletic, but I'm not intending to say they were peak human like our standards for it by being superior to athletes today. We even have an animal profile using "superior to athletic humans" as justification for a 10-A rating (Spotted Hyena).

If you think that your position is solid and you don't want to debate anymore on this area, that's ok. You're the admin with more experience, not me. The debate was fun.

My reply was supposed to be a compromise. Neanderthals are one step back from regular homo sapiens, they were genetically more different than the Cro-magnons. But feel free to bench this claim if I'm wrong.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

I don't have a counterargument because that's not all my angle for why they should be deleted. My angle relies on them being insufficiently different from modern humans to even deserve their own profile. If you want an example of their capabilities, all you have to do is look at the Attack Potency, Lifting Strength, Striking Strength, Durability, Intelligence, etc. pages.

Wait, I changed my mind. Archaeology acknowledges that evidence can be hard to find due to geological and fossilization process. All my major scans come from a source that has sampling bias even when some of them had a larger data set.

The reason why both profiles are at their tier is here:

"

• Neardenthal: They weren't that strong, and yeah, stronger than a human & comparable to athletes but not more than that. 10-A keeps fine since they can bench 500 lbs, like orangutan but we can add a 10-B key for females too. since females were much weaker and can only bench 350 lbs.
• Cro-Magnon: Well, the profile is outdated so maybe needs a deletion. More than that, they were stronger than modern humans but likely weaker than Neardenthal, not sure too.. so just 10-A & At least 10-B for females is fine too.
• Homo Erectus: They robustness is comparable of those of Neardenthal. So 10-A & At least 10-B for females is still finee..

"

DarlingAurora as a major supporter at the time has shown an intuition and intelligence on how animal species' power levels vary (sex, different subspecies/breeds/weights and sizes of a species, etc). In this case, it's sexual dimporphism.

Is the variable sexual dimporphism valid reasoning here for the profiles' tier? And would your feedback here be enough to reach a consensus on what to do with these profiles?

 

[Antvasima]

Wait, I changed my mind. Archaeology acknowledges that evidence can be hard to find due to geological and fossilization process. All my major scans come from a source that has sampling bias even when some of them had a larger data set.

The reason why both profiles are at their tier is here:

"

• Neardenthal: They weren't that strong, and yeah, stronger than a human & comparable to athletes but not more than that. 10-A keeps fine since they can bench 500 lbs, like orangutan but we can add a 10-B key for females too. since females were much weaker and can only bench 350 lbs.
• Cro-Magnon: Well, the profile is outdated so maybe needs a deletion. More than that, they were stronger than modern humans but likely weaker than Neardenthal, not sure too.. so just 10-A & At least 10-B for females is fine too.
• Homo Erectus: They robustness is comparable of those of Neardenthal. So 10-A & At least 10-B for females is still finee..

"

DarlingAurora as a major supporter at the time has shown an intuition and intelligence on how animal species' power levels vary (sex, different subspecies/breeds/weights and sizes of a species, etc). In this case, it's sexual dimporphism.

Is the variable sexual dimporphism valid reasoning here for the profiles' tier? And would your feedback here be enough to reach a consensus on what to do with these profiles?

The above changes seem fine to me as long as you link to reliable references that back them up within the pages in question.

@DarlingAurora @DarkDragonMedeus

What do you think?

 

[DarlingAurora]

The above changes seem fine to me as long as you link to reliable references that back them up within the pages in question.

@DarlingAurora @DarkDragonMedeus

What do you think?

Nya? What happened?

 

[Antvasima]

It seems like we need your input regarding this thread.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

The above changes seem fine to me as long as you link to reliable references that back them up within the pages in question.

@DarlingAurora @DarkDragonMedeus

What do you think?

The reply is from an old CRT and I was trying to talk to Crabwhale. The changes have already been implemented.

The real deal is weather the current changes that are already appiled are sufficient enough to keep the profiles. Misinterpretation.

Not sure if my old friend here can help.

 

[DarlingAurora]

It seems like we need your input regarding this thread.

It's yayy to me

 

[DarlingAurora]

Not sure if my old friend here can help.

I can nya

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

 

[Antvasima]

The reply is from an old CRT and I was trying to talk to Crabwhale. The changes have already been implemented.

The real deal is weather the current changes that are already appiled are sufficient enough to keep the profiles. Misinterpretation.

Not sure if my old friend here can help.

Anyway, what changes do you currently want to apply then, and why?

 

[H3110l12345I20]

I can nya

The deal here, is that the Cro-magnon and Neanderthals are mentally comparable to real life humans. By heart, we don't allow real life human profiles due to moral concerns and that it strays away from the purpose of the site.

Should the profiles stay?

 

[Antvasima]

Well, we do not allow specific real humans because it takes away too much from the main purpose of this site, which is fiction, and because we shouldn't create hypothetical death matches involving real specific people, but our pages for real types of animals are simply intended to portray some useful information and not portray any specific individuals.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Anyway, what changes do you currently want to apply then, and why?

Nothing currently yet. But I want to have a bit of clarifications on the scans an justifications on the profiles since they rely on an anthropologist author. And there's not that much diverse evidence beyond that.

Well, we do not allow specific real humans because it takes away too much from the main purpose of this site, which is fiction, and because we shouldn't create hypothetical death matches involving real specific people, but our pages for real types of animals are simply intended to portray some useful information and not portray any specific individuals.

Already knew this, and I was talking to DarlingAurora.

I mean, I respect Crabwhale's position, our ancestors didn't have the things modern athletes have now. Peter McAllister in these 2 sources seem to overhype and have a bias towards these hominids as being stronger than normal humans. And there's supiciously evidence for only that conclusion, considering that there are hunter gatherer groups in real life that don't have physical strength training. But that doesn't mean some groups didn't outpreform normal athletes. Also, archaeology requires evidence that can be hard to find.

"At the time, it was known that intense, repeated actions alter bone properties, such as thickness, shape and density. When you habitually work a bone in a certain manner, it toughens up to counteract the strains."

And it's shown in the sources that some of our ancestors had stronger bones. Even female farmer's arms were more robust than modern rowers. But as a more general stat, I lean more to Crabwhale.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Also, it's midnight from where I'm at, I'll sleep for now. Night everyone!

 

[DarlingAurora]

Also, it's midnight from where I'm at, I'll sleep for now. Night everyone!

Goodnight :3

 

[Antvasima]

Goodnight.

Also, if you both want to improve on the quality of the contents of those pages, feel free to do so.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

While I do not have the strongest opinions on the thread, my thoughts are still similar to Crabwhale's.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Goodnight :3

Question, a good deal of Crabwhale's argument is pretty good. Part of his argument is that most fictional cavemen have better feats, and in case we have realistic depictions of neanderthals, we can slap althletic human for speed, 10-A for AP, Dura, Striking Strength, etc. But he's not taking into account your knowledge/intuitions made factoring in sexual dimporphism of the species on the profiles. Is this enough to keep the profiles, or nah?

Your contributions made as a reference vvv

Wait, I changed my mind. Archaeology acknowledges that evidence can be hard to find due to geological and fossilization process. All my major scans come from a source that has sampling bias even when some of them had a larger data set.

The reason why both profiles are at their tier is here:

"

• Neardenthal: They weren't that strong, and yeah, stronger than a human & comparable to athletes but not more than that. 10-A keeps fine since they can bench 500 lbs, like orangutan but we can add a 10-B key for females too. since females were much weaker and can only bench 350 lbs.
• Cro-Magnon: Well, the profile is outdated so maybe needs a deletion. More than that, they were stronger than modern humans but likely weaker than Neardenthal, not sure too.. so just 10-A & At least 10-B for females is fine too.
• Homo Erectus: They robustness is comparable of those of Neardenthal. So 10-A & At least 10-B for females is still finee..

"

DarlingAurora as a major supporter at the time has shown an intuition and intelligence on how animal species' power levels vary (sex, different subspecies/breeds/weights and sizes of a species, etc). In this case, it's sexual dimporphism.

Is the variable sexual dimporphism valid reasoning here for the profiles' tier? And would your feedback here be enough to reach a consensus on what to do with these profiles?

 

[Crabwhale]

Well, we do not allow specific real humans because it takes away too much from the main purpose of this site, which is fiction, and because we shouldn't create hypothetical death matches involving real specific people, but our pages for real types of animals are simply intended to portray some useful information and not portray any specific individuals.

I clarified above that my reasons for deleting the profiles are not out of any moral concerns but rather pragmatism. They are basically more or less on the same level as anatomically modern humans, and at that point it's just straight up easier to point to the relevant statistics pages when it comes up.

Maybe you could make a case for Neanderthals staying but I see absolutely no reason why Cro-Magnons should stay.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I'm inclined to agree with Crabwhale here.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Well, I still think that a deletion of the Cro-magnon profile, and keeping the Neanderthal profile with a note on why it's still there is a viable option. Crabwhale sees that a case can be made here with keeping the Neanderthal profile.

For one, the stat pages don't take into account of the sexual dimorphism DarlingAurora took into account for the profiles of the Neanderthal and Cro-magnon. This minor difference can be still useful in the event of a realistic portrayal.

The Neanderthals are a different species compared to the Cro-magnon. While they were mentally like us, there's not that much controversy in keeping it as much as a real life profile. It's still on site with little issue morally. They once existed, we don't have to deal with IRL Neanderthals showing concern for the profile being on-site.

As for Peter McAllister, his assumptions should be re-evaluated in the IRL animals CRT for a more general stat for the overall population of the Neanderthals. But this is the least of our worries right now.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Goodnight :3

Well, since you were the inspiration for making this thread, what are your thoughts on this suggestion? vvv

Well, I still think that a deletion of the Cro-magnon profile, and keeping the Neanderthal profile with a note on why it's still there is a viable option. Crabwhale sees that a case can be made here with keeping the Neanderthal profile.

For one, the stat pages don't take into account of the sexual dimorphism DarlingAurora took into account for the profiles of the Neanderthal and Cro-magnon. This minor difference can be still useful in the event of a realistic portrayal.

The Neanderthals are a different species compared to the Cro-magnon. While they were mentally like us, there's not that much controversy in keeping it as much as a real life profile. It's still on site with little issue morally. They once existed, we don't have to deal with IRL Neanderthals showing concern for the profile being on-site.

As for Peter McAllister, his assumptions should be re-evaluated in the IRL animals CRT for a more general stat for the overall population of the Neanderthals. But this is the least of our worries right now.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

bump

 

[H3110l12345I20]

bump

 

[H3110l12345I20]

bump

 

[H3110l12345I20]

bump