- 1,275
- 1,022
No bro. Not to be rude but what you typed was not proper English.
-
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.
Lucifer, Dream, and Michael downgrade
- Thread starter Transcending
- Start date
- Status
- 9,797
- 3,610
I cant wait for DC to be deleted from VSBW
- 28
- 54
bruh
- 2,024
- 1,405
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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? 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.”
This goes hand to hand with your previous statement that was pretty much answered.
I worded it differently but this is what you said
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.
- 2,024
- 1,405
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.
- 2,024
- 1,405
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.”
- 181
- 278
I didn't understand what you said at all. Can you please try to be less confusing?
- 9,037
- 9,269
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.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:
Edit: And indeed, got severely rejected.
Last edited:
- 2,024
- 1,405
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.
- 28
- 54
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."
- 9,037
- 9,269
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.
- 2,024
- 1,405
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.
- 9,037
- 9,269
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.
- 2,024
- 1,405
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.
- 9,037
- 9,269
- 2,024
- 1,405
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?
- 9,037
- 9,269
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).
- 1,275
- 1,022
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.
- 9,797
- 3,610
i dont even know why someone made this thread in the first place
- 9,037
- 9,269
That's true as well.
Transcending
He/Him- 1,998
- 1,525
- Thread starter
- #341
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.
Additionally, if this CRT is true, then we can be sure that the "possibly 1-A" of Lucifer from the sandbox is false.
- 9,797
- 3,610
this CRT is pointless
- 181
- 278
Are you gonna write something productive or just derail the thread with useless spam?
- 165,044
- 71,886
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.
- 7,152
- 12,872
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.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
