DxD Rule addition: Class Scaling

[SweetDao]

Again, a precedent isn't a rule, and couldn't this thread be treated as a debate featuring the arguments I'm going against as an example of something that staff reject or are tired of? (If this sentence made any sense, I know my wording was poor here lol)

Idk man, I re-read my post several times and I felt the same so I feel you're probably good, trust me.

I mean. Look at it that way. You make a CRT to propose something. It's a solid proposition (or not, I don't care about the verse). It means that, in the future, if someone comes without good arguments that you may or may not have already countered, the thread would get sent into oblivion almost instantly.

If such thing repeat itself, you would get your rule one way or another.

Although, if you can prove that what you propose here was already debated heavily in other thread with your interpretation ultimately always agreed by staff members, you might have a case.

 

[MasqueTLDF]

Idk man, I re-read my post several times and I felt the same so I fell you're probably good, trust me.

I mean. Look at it that way. You make a CRT to propose something. It's a solid proposition (or not, I don't care about the verse). It means that, in the future, if someone comes without good arguments that you may or may not have already countered, the thread would get sent into oblivion almost instantly.

If such thing repeat itself, you would get your rule one way or another.

Although, if you can prove that what you propose here was already debated heavily in other thread with your interpretation ultimately always agreed by staff members, you might have a case.

So ig it'd just be a matter of time if it would ever be necessary?

 

[SweetDao]

So ig it'd just be a matter of time if it would ever be necessary?

I mean, aren't you one of the few "active" supporter of the verse anyway? I see a DxD thread once every millennium, so I think you're most likely fine even without a rule.

But yeah, sadly, I feel like "future-proofing" is quite a bit of an extreme measure. Although I understand how annoying it is to state the same things over and over again because some people thinks they found a loophole.

 

[MasqueTLDF]

Suppose I'm not familiar with either.

Idk man, like ranking the physical statistics of athletes based solely on their profession. (Implying that Football players are always faster than Basketball players, or BasketBall players are always stronger than Football players.)

Regardless, the OP is not clear: what exact rule are you intending to give, here? Is it your intent to establish 10 entire rules for the verse? You must understand that this is an extreme measure the wiki does not take lightly, such that literally no verse, no matter how controversial, has 10 rules specifically for it; rules are intended for subjects that have been discussed to death, have led to extreme toxicity from a large amount of users, and thus cannot be amended amicably. Normally people are banned before we apply a verse rule.

Well, you're right and I wasn't exactly clear in the op. I meant either an official rule/ruleset, or just something more unofficial that we'd still acknowledge when scaling the series. (Like for certain series, an example could be what is canon, or accepted calculations for certain things. Something that's acknowledged but wouldn't be changed unless there were certain circumstances.) But, since a staff member has given their response, would it be alright to postpone this indefinitely or get it closed?

These are the final line of defense- canonizing some element of the scaling is an extreme measure that runs counter to our philosophies.

If it's ok to ask, wdym by this?

 

[MasqueTLDF]

I mean, aren't you one of the few "active" supporter of the verse anyway? I see a DxD thread once every millennium, so I think you're most likely fine even without a rule.

But yeah, sadly, I feel like "future-proofing" is quite a bit of an extreme measure. Although I understand how annoying it is to state the same things over and over again because some people thinks they found a loophole.

Because I'm one of the only supporters that are active, if I'm ever unactive, anyone could present false info if they wanted, and if staff happened to approve that false info, it could possibly take a while to get that fixed. (If I'm interpreting this correctly, idk) Or possibly, a back and forth of conflicting CRTs due to conflicting info which is something I'm afraid may happen.

When creating content revisions, it is essential to ensure that the topic has not been addressed previously. Rejected content revisions cannot be resubmitted within a short period of time (typically defined as within 3 to 4 months), except in cases where a staff member has a good reason to do so (e.g. important unconsidered information, violation of site standards, or flaws in a calculation). This only applies to threads that have received extensive debate or have been rejected due to a clear conflict with the wiki's rules or standards. If a thread passes or is rejected without significant opposition, then opposition should not be restricted from making a point.

 

[Dark_Soul20189]

regarding this rule.

When creating content revisions, it is essential to ensure that the topic has not been addressed previously. Rejected content revisions cannot be resubmitted within a short period of time (typically defined as within 3 to 4 months), except in cases where a staff member has a good reason to do so (e.g. important unconsidered information, violation of site standards, or flaws in a calculation). This only applies to threads that have received extensive debate or have been rejected due to a clear conflict with the wiki's rules or standards. If a thread passes or is rejected without significant opposition, then opposition should not be restricted from making a point.

You have no need to worry, You can still make a CRT to regain it as you don't use the same evidence that was there during the debunk. This is simply to prevent spam CRTs with the same arguments and feats presented repeatedly. Meaning aslong as you bring in something new, you will be fine.

.

 

[MasqueTLDF]

Alright, well, ig relevant discussions can be continued in the ongoing CRT/GDT. Though I do thin the VSR section should be clarified to prevent more CRTs like this. (or maybe im just a lil dumb lol)

 

[Mr. Bambu]

If it's ok to ask, wdym by this?

A discussion rule is a block of discussion. This means it is made to prevent a topic from being broached that is considered unequivocally, entirely, undeniably cemented in how we consider it. As such, the creation of them is a final solution, not the first.

 

[MasqueTLDF]

A discussion rule is a block of discussion. This means it is made to prevent a topic from being broached that is considered unequivocally, entirely, undeniably cemented in how we consider it. As such, the creation of them is a final solution, not the first.

Got it, in that case, could you please close this thread?