Lucifer, Dream, and Michael downgrade

[Xearsay]

Not only it is English, but it was also explained properly and in concise detail. Like the other guy, it's purely your comprehension. If not explain what exactly didn't you understand.

No bro. Not to be rude but what you typed was not proper English.

 

[Robo432343]

I cant wait for DC to be deleted from VSBW

 

[Tetrahedron1234]

I cant wait for DC to be deleted from VSBW

bruh

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

It's not

Saying it's not doesn't disprove it because it was just from what I saw and I reread the thread multiple times to address this point. I didn't randomly make this out of thin air, if that's what you thought I meant by it.

What can be blatantly ignored?

Since it's just a viewpoint. This you can ignore the blunt of what I said that was not of the topic. I don't see where you keep thinking otherwise.

What is already self-explained?

Your response to me went over why the thread is unnecessary. And the response I get was that of “saying it doesn't make so.” Which one isn't that relevant it's self-explained because anyone can grasp the concept of “saying doesn't make it so.” The real question is why do you not know this?

What ideas implemented with what statements?

I can see why Deagon gets annoyed to repeat points over again that should be naturally known.

However, I will explain it to you “just because.”

“This isn't necessary” is literally like I said a viewpoint that I made but you literally assume that I don't see “saying doesn't make it so” as if my statement was to be conning that idea on how I said those words. I don't see why this has to be explained.

What ideas implemented with what statements?

This is already explained. So my opinion doesn't mean anything in this, so I don't see the point of bringing up something that is already self-explained. These points connected each other and I don't see how you couldn't see it.

Which is what we call "derailing", something I asked everyone to stop.

This “derailing” is what answers your question without trying to make more arguments. So unless you expect me to respond to you in a way to help you understand then how am I supposed to do it any other way?

Never said we do, and I actually argued it's derailing and asked people to stop. If others derail, we don't close the thread, we ask them to not derail.

It's not a big deal is only specifically to the idea of my earlier statement and I said that some stuff we made are not necessary. Never once was it to imply that you did.

This thread being closed was something I propose and you responded saying:

It doesn't have to be closed just because the people who disagree likes to derail

It doesn't? It either it is or shouldn't be and this shows how your point intercept and are counterintuitive. The derailing is somewhat needed for context not because “people disagree likes to derail.”

I didn't argue for the sake of arguing and I asked others to stop. It's not a reason to lock the thread.

This goes hand to hand with your previous statement that was pretty much answered.

When did I say "not meaning anything"?

I worded it differently but this is what you said

They haven't, the members not giving up doesn't mean anything.

This I already explained is not needed. As explain right here. Why am I needed to nitpick every info to explain it to you? Some of these are just to be read and how you interpret is just up to you.

You can remove that part and it still finishes your idea by disclosing what you're trying to concur here.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

It wasn't explained properly. Xearsay didn't understand, Deagon didn't understand, I didn't understand, Beyond Transcending didn't understand, and lastly, Tetra didn't understand.

This is based on comprehension, it was explained in full context. What you're saying is not indicative of it. It can be explain it in simpler terms but that's about it.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

No bro. Not to be rude but what you typed was not proper English.

How? It literally explains it. What isn't understood would be on you. If you need a simpler version of what I wrote I can do it. That dismisses the point of proper “English.”

 

[Beyond_transcending]

I didn't understand what you said at all. Can you please try to be less confusing?

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

His thread wasn't about Lucifer or Michael. You're the only one who brought up Michael in that entire thread, and when Lucifer was mentioned he said:

He made the thread because someone asked him to when arguing Lucifer and Michael must be 1-A, because he was told repeatedly his reasoning that they are 1-A (the content of the thread he made) weren't ever gonna get accepted.

Edit: And indeed, got severely rejected.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

I didn't understand what you said at all. Can you please try to be less confusing?

Read some of the things I said. Being confusing wasn't the point and if you can't understand that's on you. I can make it simplifer if needed.

 

[Tetrahedron1234]

He made the thread because someone asked him to when arguing Lucifer and Michael must be 1-A, because he was told repeatedly his reasoning that they are 1-A (the content of the thread he made) weren't ever gonna get accepted.

Lephyr can you try understanding this?
"This is saying this thread has become unnecessary. I never made it so because this can be blatantly ignored. I don't see the relevance of putting this point up when it is already self-explained. You added ideas that were not implemented with statements such as this. I'm not staff so I don't make it, it becomes unnecessary from what I saw. Unless this is a rhetorical response."

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Lephyr can you try understanding this?
"This is saying this thread has become unnecessary. I never made it so because this can be blatantly ignored. I don't see the relevance of putting this point up when it is already self-explained. You added ideas that were not implemented with statements such as this. I'm not staff so I don't make it, it becomes unnecessary from what I saw. Unless this is a rhetorical response."

It's worded a bit...uh... Much too complicated to say the least, lol. But essentially what he meant is that calling the thread necessary or not already is unnecessary in response to what he said. I think ovo

The whole thread is unnecessary to him, so arguing even against that is even more unnecessary.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

It's worded a bit...uh... Much too complicated to say the least, lol. But essentially what he meant is that calling the thread necessary or not already is unnecessary in response to what he said. I think ovo

The whole thread is unnecessary to him, so arguing even against that is even more unnecessary.

Perfectly summed up. Complications shouldn't be the reason for not understanding it. Most time in the first sentence I already summed the idea and the rest is just to add context to why. If you already know it, you know it. I will write it easier if need be.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Perfectly summed up. Complications shouldn't be the reason for not understanding it.

I do agree with the sentiment, but it's better to be as straight forward as possible with our ideas (edit: for the purposes of a debate at least) Specially in written form.

But that's just my personal belief. In my native language I complicate myself when speaking as well, lol.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

I do agree with the sentiment, but it's better to be as straight forward as possible with our ideas (edit: for the purposes of a debate at least) Specially in written form.

But that's just my personal belief. In my native language I complicate myself when speaking as well, lol.

I see this but it annoying when something is understood that they see it as “not English.”

I clearly made the point. I admit it can be worded differently, and that I can make it simplifier. However to call it that just because it's complicated to understand is not a reason to jump to the conclusion as “that's not proper English.”

It's annoying. I assume if they don't know it one asks. They had and I simplified or try to simplify what I said rather than make bold statement such as those. I'm glad you made it easier to understand what you shouldn't be responsible for. I feel like there all on this just do degrade some of the stuff said to push their topic to work. Anything that goes against it they pin point the same thing “it's not English” or “it's not proper.” I get tired of seeing this and half of their mistakes I also see but I try reading and simplifying it as they should as well.

Sorry for this rant but I think you can see why I had to say this.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

I see this but it annoying when something is understood that they see it as “not English.”

I clearly made the point.I admit it can be worded differently, and that I can make it simplifier. However to call it that just because it's complicated to understand is not a reason to jump to the conclusion as “that's not proper English.”

It's annoying. I assume if they don't know it one asks. They had and I simplified or try to simplify what Isaid rather than make blood statement such as those. I'm glad you made it easier to understand what you shouldn't be responsible for. I feel like there all on this just do degrade some of the stuff said to push their topic to work. Anything that goes against it they pin point the same thing “it's not English” or “it's not proper.” I get tired of seeing this and half of their mistakes I also see but I try reading and simplifying it they should as well.

Sorry for this rant but I think you can see why I had to say this.

I getcha, I getcha ayy

Now we should stop derailing.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

I getcha, I getcha ayy

Now we should stop derailing.

This thread should be closed period. However, that's just “set view.”

I was indirectly calling them out for the I wouldn't say gaslighting but just nuisance of no importance just because they don't understand.

Anyways best way to stop the derail is to get a staff for one final overview and close the thread.

You don't see the need to go any further with this thread right?

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

My personal stance, curiously, is in agreement with you. This topic is best tackled when all the cosmology revisions start, because it's not just Lucifer, Dream and Michael that will necessitate a revision. It's the entire vertigo line of characters. Better to tackle 'em all in one well swoop, specially when a lot of scaling is made between characters (god swamp thing immediately comes to mind, which will depend on the presence, which will depend on if the source will continue to apply to him, and so and so forth).

 

[Xearsay]

My personal stance, curiously, is in agreement with you. This topic is best tackled when all the cosmology revisions start, because it's not just Lucifer, Dream and Michael that will necessitate a revision. It's the entire vertigo line of characters. Better to tackle 'em all in one well swoop, specially when a lot of scaling is made between characters (god swamp thing immediately comes to mind, which will depend on the presence, which will depend on if the source will continue to apply to him, and so and so forth).

I see what you’re saying but my and other peoples problem with this is that we don’t even know if the revisions will be accepted. I don’t really see how it’s fair to try and shut down threads over the idea that a massive change could come in the future. So if people want to alter the current tiers, let them.

 

[Robo432343]

i dont even know why someone made this thread in the first place

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

I see what you’re saying but my and other peoples problem with this is that we don’t even know if the revisions will be accepted. I don’t really see how it’s fair to try and shut down threads over the idea that a massive change could come in the future. So if people want to alter the current tiers, let them.

That's true as well.

 

[Transcending]

It's not confirmed that the revisions will be accepted, and @Deagonx, one of the members doing the revisions himself stated this(https://vsbattles.com/threads/small-mandrakk-additions.138702/post-5156283). Plus we don't even know when the revisions will come, people have been saying they will come soon since last year but look where we are now.

Additionally, if this CRT is true, then we can be sure that the "possibly 1-A" of Lucifer from the sandbox is false.

 

[Robo432343]

this CRT is pointless

 

[Vondoom]

Just saw this thread and lol.

 

[Beyond_transcending]

this CRT is pointless

Are you gonna write something productive or just derail the thread with useless spam?

 

[Antvasima]

The bad faith aspect of it is that the discussion cannot make any headway because they are constantly contesting even the most basic information and straight-forward scans by proposing very counter-intuitive and far-fetched interpretations, purely out of contrarianism, and demanding that the intuitive interpretation is proven to an exhaustive degree. This has been happening with almost every single piece of information discussed in the thread.

Now, it is one thing to have a difference in opinion, and to want there to be some supporting evidence or clear reasoning on an ambiguous scan, but that's not what I'm referring to here, I'm almost always more than happy to explain my reasoning and cite my sources. But there needs to be an element of reasonability, not dogmatic skepticism of every piece of information that contradicts the CRT. Even Lucifer has expressed this frustration in the thread:

It's become an extremely tiresome conversation because they refuse to concede to even the most basic and obvious facts and interpretations of DC. Like the fact that the Presence/Source task Supercelestials with creating multiverses, and they act according to it's judgment and will, so he scales above the Supercelestials and probably created them. He argued that the supercelestials probably created themselves, and just because they do the bidding of the Source doesn't mean the Source is stronger than them or scales to them, because humans can hire bodyguards. As if it makes any sense that a race of Multiverse-creating supercelestial beings would do the bidding of a deity who was weaker than them and didn't create them. Especially given how often that bidding is directly intended to result in their deaths.

Like, that's such low-effort nonsense it borders on trolling, but every single piece of information is contested in an equally contrarian and nonsensical way, and when I decided I was tired of proving basic information to a tedious degree, they started claiming I had no evidence and that my complaints were that they asked for evidence.

It's just not worth the effort. Lucifer abandoned ship for the same reason after thoroughly proving his point, but still having tiresome illogical objections being piled onto every piece of information he provided.

I agree with much of the post that I quoted above. Deagonx seems to have rationally thoroughly refuted the counter-arguments here, and at this point his opposition just seems to waste everybody else's time with completely unreasonable stonewalling. Beyond a certain degree of repetitive pointlessness content revision threads should be closed.

 

[Deagonx]

Beyond a certain degree of repetitive pointlessness content revision threads should be closed.

I agree. The basis for scaling the Presence's creation to the entire DC Multiverse is very good, by way of the Source Wall and Destiny's book. On top of the other evidence clearly asserting the Presence has above the Supercelestials.

I highly doubt the arguments made here are going to be found persuasive by the other staff members if Lucifer, you, and myself all disagree. The evidence LuciferDC099 gave is straight-forward and well-reasoned.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Since this thread is going around in circles, I will close it then.