-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Kirby Cosmology Upgrade Part 2
- Thread starter Peptocoptr27
- Start date
- Status
- 579
- 312
crts only get passed if mods agree with it
- 17,278
- 11,494
1. Are we sure no mods agree with this?
2. Tyranny of the minority if I ever saw it.
- 579
- 312
there was 1 admin that was basically agreeing and 1 disagreeing and another neutral
- 4,942
- 1,316
Calm down man, look, I don’t like that rule no more than you do (I have changed a lot in the 6 months I was gone), but don’t start an outrage yet, or this place will get the same fate as the discussion forum
- 1,270
- 655
- Thread starter
- #126
Some of them think that a "Likely/Possibly Low 1-C" could be suitable.
It wouldn't be such a big deal if they were actually invested in reaching a conclusion. I started a Discord group chat with some mods and they've all stopped replying. The last message they left me with is essentially "Go ask people on the list of supporters of the Kirby verse". I did exactly that. No response from them either. I asked what else there was to even verify about the legitimacy of this upgrade. No response. No debunks. If you haven't already, please contact Kirby supporters who might actually care about this. I'm not sure what else we can do right now.
- 17,278
- 11,494
Just asked like 5 or 6 supporters who are either mods or admins for help.
- 12,662
- 9,597
Don't bump so quickly, only after 8 hours of inactivity.
In any case, wasn't this rejected already by multiple staff members? Or has new stuff been added?
In any case, wasn't this rejected already by multiple staff members? Or has new stuff been added?
- 579
- 312
one seemed to be okay with low 1-c, one disagreed, one remained neutral, and as far as I can see that was the entirety of staff input
- 9,222
- 3,365
Pepto refuted almost every mod response to this thread
- 1,270
- 655
- Thread starter
- #133
If there's any argument I missed, let me know, but yeah. Right now, there's basically no counter-argument left against this upgrade. Everything12 is repeating old debunked points and saying that his mind remains unchanged while every other mod I talked to agreed that I need to get more staff involvement without elaborating on how that's even going to help. I did as they said but not only did they stop replying since, but the staff members I contacted also didn't respond.
No new stuff has been added to my argument ever since the making of this specific Part 2 thread, but I don't see why that would be needed when no new stuff has been added to the arguments of the opposition either. Every argument against this thread so far has either been a refute to a single severely outdated point, a logical fallacy, or a stance which directly goes against the very foundation of the Wiki and VS debating as a whole.
- 9,222
- 3,365
i only added "almost" cuz i thought that might've been an exaggeration if i said u actually did refute everything, but it seems u did
- 12,662
- 9,597
I was thinking, if there are some new evidence/arguments and they missed it, you should probably contact them
Why not ask Efi? This is his forte
- 9,222
- 3,365
he was there since the beginning of this whole revision
- 12,662
- 9,597
Ah. Can't see him here
- 1,270
- 655
- Thread starter
- #138
Oh, alright then Lmao
Already done a long time ago. I provided them all of my arguments and they either told me the same outdated counter-argument or they told me to get more staff involvement. But how is more staff involvement even supposed to help when there's nothing left to verify? Can anyone tell me what's missing for this upgrade to be legit? What debate is left to be had when the statements and context are so blatant and they fit so perfectly within our standards?
He's been here since the very first thread surrounding this topic. I figured if he wanted to keep getting involved in such an important Kirby discussion, he would have done so already.
- 12,662
- 9,597
I don't know about verify, but you ought to change their mind or somesuch. But getting more staff to evaluate both sides will make the upgrade go quicker, especially since it's tier 1. Although I don't know anyone else who might be into Kirby. Probably ask Ant
- 1,270
- 655
- Thread starter
- #141
Thanks for checking in. That's pretty much what I expected (aside from Effi's points apparantly being worse than every other argument in the thread... damn...)
- 1,270
- 655
- Thread starter
- #144
It's all in the thread. I merely shifted the focus towards something more specific because my arguments in part 1 of this discussion were severely misunderstood and the most important aspects of it were mostly ignored.
- 219
- 110
erm actually...................
jokes aside i agree with the upgrade
- 1,270
- 655
- Thread starter
- #147
Are you not able to read the thread and see that the main argument is unrelated to the FAQ correction you made? I know your thread exists. Trust me, I've followed it since the beginning and even voiced my agreement with DDM (before realizing I wasn't allowed to comment).The least you could do on your end is catch up on the discussion before jumping to conclusions.
- 15,575
- 10,455
i believe giving another briefing would be more reasonable. If you get heated you lose, remember that, it is how debates work.
- 1,270
- 655
- Thread starter
- #150
The OP is already a summarized version of the argument but if you want me sum it up in one sentence I would say that a space which has a relationship of superiority over the temporal dimension as a whole can't be lower than 5D unless time in this context is lower than 4D to begin with. The Twitter statement allows Kirby cosmology to be 5D under this basic logic. There's not even any subjectivity left when it comes to what else the statement could mean because I verified it with a professional translator, a translation community, and multiple web sites, even asking them questions and showing you proof of my research.
About what you said in this thread right here... First of all, this comes off as incredibly condescending, not just to me but to everyone who has a problem with the FAQ. Secondly, I still don't think you're caught up on this thread. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I am, I think you should consider the possibility that maybe you're missing important details too. If we're both missing info, the best way to settle this is with an open debate, so no ignoring and talking behind each other's backs.
Can we bring back Ultima and Elizhaa? I can't seem to contact them and they would be of great help right now. Everything12 and Elexir can come along too if they want.
- 15,418
- 5,011
Context, I wouldn't have need to if I hasn't ignored on that glaring issue we have, I don't even know if what I said cut it, and it would be impossible to either comment there or reply to this thread on what's wrong with it without sounding condescending, as it lacks any logic and so comes down to "You're wrong, I'm correct" without much to it. You point out the OP as having the evidence, the OP is wrong about how the TS FQA says that a realm "superior" to a regular timeline is Low 1-C and uses AD exceeding/surpassing dimensions to claim it's Low 1-C, but you were aware of a thread where it was said many times that being superior doesn't do anything, even in that comment you linked where you say I was condescending. You even clarified me that this isn't supporting evidence but the real proof, you can't pull a vague "I still don't think you're caught up on this thread" and "you should consider the possibility that maybe you're missing important details", if we say "X isn't valid" and you say "X is valid" then logically I'm forced to deconstruct what's going on there so we can do better.
- 1,270
- 655
- Thread starter
- #152
I was hoping to wait for Ultima so I wouldn't have to speak on his behalf, but I guess I'll just say it. This is the crucial detail that you missed:
There's also this to make it even more obvious. No one disagreed with his stance, which makes sense because it's as close as you can get to objective truth in VS debating. You say that I'm the one who's so oblivious to the evidence around me that I haven't learned anything, but yet you don't seem to realize that not every mod thinks exactly the way you do when it comes to the FAQ revisions, and by extension, when it comes to this upgrade. My word may be worthless to you since I'm not a mod, but Ultima's perfectly logical stance on how to treat tier 1 also aligns with the logic behind this upgrade. That's why my mind isn't changed by the thread you made, because if anything, it supports my point.
- 15,418
- 5,011
He was immediately called off for that being inaccurate by DontTalk and me in the 2 comments that followed it, and then he admitted that a place there would need to be 5-D and that he was open to suggestions for that bit, you literally cannot grab that and use it as you did. 5-D in this context means the same misleading, convoluted things the tiering uses it for, not something you can get by just existing outside a timeline and claim "Time is 4D so this is 5D", that's just you abusing a misunderstanding of our rules to apply nonsense that was never a thing in a verse.
You still used things that don't mean anything as part of evidence for Low 1-C, you explicitly used it as the real evidence and not secondary stuff, I was correct to say you didn't learn anything. I fear to deconstruct the why of it to help you not do it again because I don't want to keep this on by you potentially don't understanding something, I'm unsure how to proceed.
You still used things that don't mean anything as part of evidence for Low 1-C, you explicitly used it as the real evidence and not secondary stuff, I was correct to say you didn't learn anything. I fear to deconstruct the why of it to help you not do it again because I don't want to keep this on by you potentially don't understanding something, I'm unsure how to proceed.
- 1,270
- 655
- Thread starter
- #154
You mean here? The only thing he called him off on was his usage of the term "beyond". It was misleading because it implies that simply being outside of dimensions is tier 1. What you said is essentially the same. You focus on the fact that "beyond" can refer to being outside of something, and it doesn't translate to tier 1. I 100% agree with that. The thing is that I already debunked this argument since the statement doesn't use the word "beyond" or anything really synonymous to that. The words it use always refers to a superiority (超えて) and to mathematical dimensions (次元) in a context like this where no other option even remotely makes sense.
I'm done speaking on his behalf and interpreting his words. Let's just wait for him to elaborate. I'm just gonna say that you're once again misrepresenting my argument by saying that I think AD is 5D because it resides outside of a timeline. My real argument is that it's superior to not only the timeline, but the very axes that make it up. If you reside outside of a 4D structure, that's pretty much meaningless. If you're superior to a 4D structure, you're still just 4D without further context, but if you're superior to the very foundation that make up all 4D structures (in this case, 3 spatial dimensions and 1 temporal dimension), that's a qualitative superiority and you can't be lower than 5D. That is my argument.
Now that I explained the distinction between your view of my argument and my actual argument, it's up to you to try to understand. If you think my points are dumb, you can say it while using counter-evidence to back-up your claim, but to say that the things I use literally don't mean anything implies that you're the one who doesn't understand, since even the dumbest of arguments still have meaning behind them, even if that meaning is false.
Let's wait for Ultima.
- 15,699
- 7,656
Something I mentioned in another chat a while: "Looking back, I will be frank the mere fact the feat could mean other things could make it get rejected. 2-A upgrades have been rejected from kanjis that could mean multiple things besides infinite, for instance."
- 15,699
- 7,656
@Starter_Pack @DarkDragonMedeus @SamanPatou @Moritzva since you are listed as supporters of the verse, what are your thoughts on the proposals?
Inputs would be appreciated; thanks in advance.
Inputs would be appreciated; thanks in advance.
- 1,270
- 655
- Thread starter
- #157
I thought I had made it clear that it explicitly can't reasonably mean anything else. If you disagree, can you at least give me examples of what else the statement could mean? I've looked for alternatives and none of them make any sense.
- 1,270
- 655
- Thread starter
- #159
Bump
- 1,270
- 655
- Thread starter
- #160
Bump
- Status
