-
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.
Low 2-C Zeref + other stuffs
- Thread starter Beast_Zero_Gudako
- Start date
- Status
- 158
- 31
CNBA3 said:
Doesn't work like that, it's either all hyperbole or none of it is. You can't pick what's convenient to you in order to benefit Zeref's argument, this is textbook cherry picking.
- 13,119
- 20,830
"The majority of people."
To be honest, the majority of people in this thread were actually agreeing that this should be Low 2-C, and for good reason. Just because we're defending a point with reasoning behind it, doesn't mean we're grasping desperately onto something.
To be honest, the majority of people in this thread were actually agreeing that this should be Low 2-C, and for good reason. Just because we're defending a point with reasoning behind it, doesn't mean we're grasping desperately onto something.
- 158
- 31
In the beginning where little to no context was given about the feat in question, misinformation about the feat was thrown out left and right, after me and a few other users pointed this out the issue became evident. There is absolutely no reason behind it, and you two are the only ones arguing for it at this point despite there being a plethora of counter evidence against low 2-C.
- 56
- 29
But you're using a scan that you admittedly acknowledge has hyperbolic aspects present as proof of something. You're deriving the idea of parallel worlds as if we can assume what's being said is truthful. By that point, you would need to still proof why it's truthful.
- 380
- 78
Someone above already pointed how parallel universe existing doesn't have a hand on Zeref's feat because it has nothing to do with it. Zeref is resetting time of the world, which isn't an entire universe nor timeline as the evidences thus far show
How in the **** that just because a completely different thing happening on panel that mean an entirely different thing that just so happen to use the same word õ©ûþòî suddenly mean Zeref is resetting back the entire universe?
Look now whos banking on their argument on a single word. If you want to cherry pick something at least makes it subtle
How in the **** that just because a completely different thing happening on panel that mean an entirely different thing that just so happen to use the same word õ©ûþòî suddenly mean Zeref is resetting back the entire universe?
Look now whos banking on their argument on a single word. If you want to cherry pick something at least makes it subtle
- 13,119
- 20,830
Honestly, this can be solved in one way:
Try making a CRT on Zeref's range with Neo Eclipse.
If a change is agreed on, then alright, I can agree with it.
If not, I see no reason for Zeref to not get the Low 2-C rating since that would mean that it's accepted that Zeref's range with it is Universal+, and as such, affects time on a universal scale.
Try making a CRT on Zeref's range with Neo Eclipse.
If a change is agreed on, then alright, I can agree with it.
If not, I see no reason for Zeref to not get the Low 2-C rating since that would mean that it's accepted that Zeref's range with it is Universal+, and as such, affects time on a universal scale.
- 56
- 29
Because nobody was arguing against it. If there are new arguments against it, users should evaluate their stance again.DragonGamerZ913 said:
- 158
- 31
We've explained this to you, no CRT on his range needs to be made. This IS the CRT, we're discussing Neo Eclipse at the moment. What the actual **** do you think we're talking about? I've explained to you why his range is wrong and this is quite literally the thread that's dealing with it. Quit acting oblivious.
- 1,161
- 965
Why do you keep saying parallel universes when it's parallel worlds.
- 13,119
- 20,830
Well so far no one's agreed on range, only on not giving him the tiering.
- 1,161
- 965
People disagreeing with Low 2-C will affect the range.
- 158
- 31
DragonGamerZ913 said:
This is a dishonest comment and tells us a lot about your character. My posts were given several kudos and users agreed with them, and his range needs to be updated regardless due to wiki standards. Seriously this isn't difficult to comprehend.
- 56
- 29
Once again, I have to agree with what's being said above. Trying to revise the range into a different CRT is just asking to prolong the matter beyond what's needed when we can solve it here and now. Either Zeref gets his Low 2-C or he gets it denied and has his range downgraded to whatever is agreed upon, it's rather simple since the range is reliant on what's already posted too.
- 13,119
- 20,830
Honestly it seems like it'll either be both or nothing.
Either the range gets changed and there's no Low 2-C, or the range stays the same and there is a Low 2-C
Either the range gets changed and there's no Low 2-C, or the range stays the same and there is a Low 2-C
- 380
- 78
Someone pointed out how his range is wrong and someone put it there without an actual CRT. CRT revising his range would effectively halt this thread while the second option is you literally giving a tier to something based on wrong/unaccepted stuff
You're very welcome to do the first
While the second is just lol
You're very welcome to do the first
While the second is just lol
- 158
- 31
The range isn't staying the same, are you seriously gonna sit here and blatantly ignore what's wrong with it?
- 1,161
- 965
The official translation states it is parallel universes, in the link I provided above
And the raw scan I posted above says worlds.
And the raw scan I posted above says worlds.
- 13,119
- 20,830
But there's nothing wrong with it? Just because you say it's wrong, doesn't mean it is.
- 56
- 29
What do you think all of the previous counterarguments were then? A bad dream?DragonGamerZ913 said:
- 380
- 78
Official localization doesn't mean they're infallible. What the raw scan actually says differ from what the translator choose to use, if we're actually trying to be accurate rather than being desperate we'll go with what the raw said. And it ain't universeCNBA3 said:
- 158
- 31
DragonGamerZ913 said:
Mate, this isn't my word and my word alone. This is quite literally standard wiki practice, seriously quit ignoring shit to your own leisure. You are quite literally ignoring what you want to ignore while paying attention to a single argument out of many.
- 13,119
- 20,830
And I simply disagree with those counterarguments. I apologize if I sound stupid right now, it's almost 1 AM which is probably not a good time for me to be making a VS debate, but I still stand by my point.
- 1,161
- 965
- 380
- 78
Which is wrong. Goddamn are you this desperate or are you just illiterate?
The translator can use cosmos or even ******* multiverse for all i care and it wouldn't change the fact that the author himself doesn't use Õ«çÕ«Ö , rather going with õ©ûþòî
The translator can use cosmos or even ******* multiverse for all i care and it wouldn't change the fact that the author himself doesn't use Õ«çÕ«Ö , rather going with õ©ûþòî
- 158
- 31
DragonGamerZ913 said:
What you disagree with is ultimately irrelevant, we're discussing wiki standards not our opinions. Seriously this isn't difficult to understand, it's 12:51 AM here, I've been working since the morning, got off at 9 and I'm still able to understand this concept. There's no reason for you not to understand.
- 56
- 29
You're missing the point. He's saying the Japanese doesn't mention universes, the English does. You're circling back to using a translation again, which is the problem we had to begin with because the source wasn't saying that.
Stuff like this should be the reason you want to use the source if you have access to it over a localization.
Stuff like this should be the reason you want to use the source if you have access to it over a localization.
- 380
- 78
Do i need to repeat why that's ******* wrong?CNBA3 said:
Actually nevermind. Your whole point regarding that is braindead unless you take 3 or 4 years of Japanese language class
- 13,119
- 20,830
Mate, that's confirmation bias for you. Ignoring contradictory points and focusing on what confirms your belief. I do it, you do it, we all do it. It's how we form our arguments: by focusing on what supports our arguments.
- 3,879
- 345
Anyway not that it matters whether they are world or universe, but in context they are both the same when they are multiverses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Brief_explanatio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Brief_explanatio
- 158
- 31
Bias? No I'm using wiki standards, these are literally rules I myself did not make. You should grab a dictionary because you obviously don't know what bias means.
- 1,161
- 965
Lmao. Bringing in a wikipedia link. I'm done.
- 380
- 78
A link to a wikipedia doesn't prove anything under the context of some Japanese shounen mangaThatOneBrit said:
- 13,119
- 20,830
I do, and I also know that you've been pretty aggressive with your comments, to the point where it sounds like you're outright belittling the people that disagree with you.
- Status
Similar threads
