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

[Antvasima]

Well, since Agnaa thinks that there is no issue with those pages, should we keep them and close this thread then?

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Well, since Agnaa thinks that there is no issue with those pages, should we keep them and close this thread then?

Ask staff like Crabwhale or Qawsedf234 regarding this first, then if most or either agree, then this thread should be closed.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, since Agnaa thinks that there is no issue with those pages, should we keep them and close this thread then?

Ask staff like Crabwhale or Qawsedf234 regarding this first, then if most or either agree, then this thread should be closed.

Okay.

@Qawsedf234 @Crabwhale @Firestorm808 @DarkDragonMedeus @LordGriffin1000

What do you think?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I still agree more with what Crabwhale said

That depends on what we define as "pre-human ancestors".

Modern day humans are commonly referred to as "Homo-Sapiens". But anyway, if there was a proposal to merge all the various sub-species that predated them and gave them a general name. I think "Prehistoric Human Ancestors" or "Prehistoric Humans" would be a better name. But that's only if we have that what if.

 

[Qawsedf234]

What do you think?

If we want to keep it as a generic pre-human species thing I'm not against it. But I still don't see the need to have the profile exist, though it doesn't break a rule or anything afaik.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. It doesn't seem to cause any harm to keep the pages in question then.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

If we want to keep it as a generic pre-human species thing I'm not against it. But I still don't see the need to have the profile exist, though it doesn't break a rule or anything afaik.

Cro-magnons are technically real people & Neanderthals are mentally comparable, & one could interpret that as breaching of editing rules here. Another like Agnaa here could interpret that them not being living, breathing people anymore today would make this less of an issue morally/by this site's purpose.

Okay. It doesn't seem to cause any harm to keep the pages in question then.

I still see the use of the information from those pages (especially the Neanderthal in the event of a realistic portrayal). An info blog on the Neanderthal is what we need here at a bare minimum on the event of a realistic portrayal.

"Prehumans" or the genus homo is quite diverse & although they have similarities, most of them aren't as similar to prehistoric homo sapiens & Neanderthals. We have hominids of different tiers & physiologies separate enough to not be removed or condensed into an information blog.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

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?

 

[H3110l12345I20]

bump

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

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?

@Antvasima

 

[Agnaa]

I don't really care what the solution is. Whether it's just leaving them up, adding a note on their profiles, or rewriting that rule to say "homo sapiens sapiens" instead, or in addition.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

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?

bump ^^^

 

[H3110l12345I20]

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?

bump ^^^

 

[H3110l12345I20]

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?

bump ^^^

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

@Antvasima

 

[Antvasima]

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?

I think that the pages can stay with a footnote in each of them, yes.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

I think that the pages can stay with a footnote in each of them, yes.

K. Now we need more staff input. I've changed the OP accordingly. Though question, is it necessary to put that "Unless the fiction stresses X ability a regular human has on a character, the abilities shouldn't be there"? Or people are going to generally know this?

I've had a regular user make the argument that since "X character" is from a verse that's based off of real life, the fight-or-flight response should apply in one of my matches. What do we do if someone else attempts to use the same reasoning or the fact that "they're human" on similar characters?

 

[Antvasima]

K. Now we need more staff input. I've changed the OP accordingly.

Okay.

@Flashlight237 @Crabwhale @Agnaa @DarkDragonMedeus @LordGriffin1000 @Firestorm808 @Qawsedf234 @Dalesean027 @IdiosyncraticLawyer

Are you willing to help out here please?

Though question, is it necessary to put that "Unless the fiction stresses X ability a regular human has on a character, the abilities shouldn't be there"? Or people are going to generally know this?

I've had a regular user make the argument that since "X character" is from a verse that's based off of real life, the fight-or-flight response should apply in one of my matches. What do we do if someone else attempts to use the same reasoning or the fact that "they're human" on similar characters?

I am not sure. Please elaborate/explain further.

 

[Agnaa]

K. Now we need more staff input.

I've already given my input, unless you have new points.

Though question, is it necessary to put that "Unless the fiction stresses X ability a regular human has on a character, the abilities shouldn't be there"? Or people are going to generally know this?

Probably.

I've had a regular user make the argument that since "X character" is from a verse that's based off of real life, the fight-or-flight response should apply in one of my matches. What do we do if someone else attempts to use the same reasoning or the fact that "they're human" on similar characters?

Yeah, I'd say that should be accepted in matches, but I'd be surprised if it was a decisive factor.

 

[Crabwhale]

@Flashlight237 @Crabwhale @Agnaa @DarkDragonMedeus @LordGriffin1000 @Firestorm808 @Qawsedf234 @Dalesean027 @IdiosyncraticLawyer

I've already said all I needed to say on the matter.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

I am not sure. Please elaborate/explain further.

What if for whatever reasoning, its suggested that "Character Y has X ability a regular real life human has on character Y." Should be a thing where it should be there unless its not emphasized/stressed to be in the official canon like Agnaa said?

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Yeah, I'd say that should be accepted in matches, but I'd be surprised if it was a decisive factor.

The only way the abilities would be decisive is if they were very commited & aggressive against another 10-B without any emphasized/notable form of statistics amplification or any other potent ability.

I initially meant to question on how it would extend to the abilities being on the human character profiles, but ok.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Okay.

@Flashlight237 @Crabwhale @Agnaa @DarkDragonMedeus @LordGriffin1000 @Firestorm808 @Qawsedf234 @Dalesean027 @IdiosyncraticLawyer

Are you willing to help out here please?

I've been on the fence regarding this so I'd say a note on the profiles work if anything. I'm fine with that.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm in the same boat as Crabwhale.

 

[Antvasima]

So what did Crabwhale and Medeus think previously?

 

[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".

 

[H3110l12345I20]

So what did Crabwhale and Medeus think previously?

"...Cro-Magnons ARE real people. They're responsible for art, culture and more on the European continent. They do not possess much that differentiates from us, besides slight anatomical differences and the passage of time."

To me, it depends on where we want to draw the line on what's real & if we should extend our moral+heart of the site matter into both pages. Like for example, do you consider Mesozoic Era dinos or mammoths real when they've been extinct for thousands, perhaps millions of years?

 

[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.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

So far... its:
Cro-magnon+Neanderthal profiles
[*]Agree: Antvasima, me, Flashlight237 (Neanderthal's stay)
[*]Disagree: Crabwhale, DarkDragonMedeus, Flashlight237 (Cro-magnon's removal)
[*]Neutral: Agnaa

IRL human abilities:

H3110l12345I20 said:
Though question, is it necessary to put that "Unless the fiction stresses X ability a regular human has on a character, the abilities shouldn't be there"? Or people are going to generally know this?

Probably.

H3110l12345I20 said:
I've had a regular user make the argument that since "X character" is from a verse that's based off of real life, the fight-or-flight response should apply in one of my matches. What do we do if someone else attempts to use the same reasoning or the fact that "they're human" on similar characters?

Yeah, I'd say that should be accepted in matches, but I'd be surprised if it was a decisive factor.



The votes for both of the profiles' stay are even in quantity, but how this thread will go & the arguments altimately determines the quality of the arguements.

Agnaa states that it's probably necessary to put a rule in regards to real life people abilities onto real life characters. I agree with Agnaa since assuming this wiki lasts for a couple of decades, there's going to be that one guy arguing "X human character has the abilities of real life regular people for X reason" for making profiles & in vs matches.

 

[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.

@Crabwhale @DarkDragonMedeus

Is it fine if we keep the pages with an extra footnote as was mentioned above?

 

[Agnaa]

I don't believe I'm neutral, I think that the ideal rules would allow such profiles, only disallowing profiles for Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

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

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for your reply.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

I don't believe I'm neutral, I think that the ideal rules would allow such profiles, only disallowing profiles for Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

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

I get what you're intending to say (no real life humans), but technically, modern homo sapiens (homo sapiens sapiens) existed since 160 thousand years ago & Cro-magnons existed from 40 to 10 thousand years ago. But I'll count your position quantitively.

 

[Agnaa]

I am well aware that other species closely related to modern humans were around at the same time, but I hold my position all the same.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

bump

 

[H3110l12345I20]

bump

 

[H3110l12345I20]

bump

 

[H3110l12345I20]

bump

 

[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.