-
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.
Mammoth Mogul First Tenure AP Change and Possible 4th Key
- Thread starter Awsometime
- Start date
- Status
- 769
- 192
It's as bad a Silver Surfer getting knocked out by Mexicans with a Sledge Hammer.
- 7,069
- 1,457
I swear whenever I hear something like this, McDonald's Darkseid or Arrested Thanos I can't help but laugh.ED INFINITUM said:
- 12,524
- 3,492
Archie Sonic is heavily influenced by Marvel and DC, not surprising they would have inconsistencies like that, although still not as much to the extent.
Mephistus
Username Only- 1,034
- 794
Scourge casually stating he could split apart their Earth-like planet in half in one go which would exceed Earth busting energy if we assume the two halfs arent coming back together via gravity. That alone should support higher tier placement context wise than 5-B if there is stuff like him saying Al and Cal are definitely weaker if we go by his other statement during jailbreak.
Also that evil Super Sonic vs base Sonic incident.
Also that evil Super Sonic vs base Sonic incident.
- 15,471
- 22,555
Isn't that just 5-B?
- 12,524
- 3,492
He made that spin dashing the planet in half statement as Super Scourge though. He also said he would rule the multiverse.
- 124
- 15
- Thread starter
- #128
Outerversal french friesHst master said:
- 124
- 15
- Thread starter
- #129
Anyway we're getting off track here as funny as it may be. Are we ready to wrap up the thread and apply the changes?
- 12,524
- 3,492
Wait for Ex.
- 769
- 192
Has anyone informed him about this?
- 12,524
- 3,492
MYHERO did.
- 769
- 192
Cool.
- 315
- 56
I don't care either way on Mogul being universal or whatever. I don't think the argument of "he has a Chaos emerald and those are universal therefore he's universal" is very solid when he hasn't actually displayed feats of that level (that I can recall) but whatever. While that's debatably incorrect, Mogul with the grey emerald being thousands of times stronger definitely is.
The Chaos emeralds are the same power wise after the great harmony. While the Master Emerald's existence would make one think they would be stronger, nothing said or done by the characters implies this. Right after the harmony, Tails uses a device made for a pre harmony emerald with no problems, nothing Mogul says or does implies he's stronger with the grey emerald, Sonic still needs all 7 to go super, the Master Emerald is still stronger than the 7 post harmony emeralds, and lastly, Ian Flynn has stated the emeralds aren't stronger post harmony. In this case more emeralds doesn't equal more power.
Do you have any other examples of Sonic "consistently" matching Mogul? Issue 114 is the only instance I can recall that could be spun that way, but it doesn't really count since it's likely Mogul wasn't at full power as he easily defeats Sonic in 163 with a similar attack to 114. It's also extremely likely that he simply faked his defeat in order to continue his plan. The was he leaves the fight with Sonic in order to lay the trap for Knuckles mirrors the way he left the fight with the Chaotix and FF in order to steal Enerjak's power in Super Sonic Special 1.
Sonic fighting Naugus also doesn't prove 3A as not only does Naugus simply possessimg a Chaos emerald not inherently make fighting him a 3A feat but Sonic needed the Sword of Light to fight him anyway.
Mobile sucks so I'll have to add scans in later.
To address something not in the OP, I wouldn't take Scourge at his word that he's stronger than AL and Cal when A. he has no idea how powerful they are and B. he is absurdly cocky and arrogant. Him throwing out blanket statements about how he's better than the guys he's beating on is flimsy grounds for putting him above AL and Cal.
The Chaos emeralds are the same power wise after the great harmony. While the Master Emerald's existence would make one think they would be stronger, nothing said or done by the characters implies this. Right after the harmony, Tails uses a device made for a pre harmony emerald with no problems, nothing Mogul says or does implies he's stronger with the grey emerald, Sonic still needs all 7 to go super, the Master Emerald is still stronger than the 7 post harmony emeralds, and lastly, Ian Flynn has stated the emeralds aren't stronger post harmony. In this case more emeralds doesn't equal more power.
Do you have any other examples of Sonic "consistently" matching Mogul? Issue 114 is the only instance I can recall that could be spun that way, but it doesn't really count since it's likely Mogul wasn't at full power as he easily defeats Sonic in 163 with a similar attack to 114. It's also extremely likely that he simply faked his defeat in order to continue his plan. The was he leaves the fight with Sonic in order to lay the trap for Knuckles mirrors the way he left the fight with the Chaotix and FF in order to steal Enerjak's power in Super Sonic Special 1.
Sonic fighting Naugus also doesn't prove 3A as not only does Naugus simply possessimg a Chaos emerald not inherently make fighting him a 3A feat but Sonic needed the Sword of Light to fight him anyway.
To address something not in the OP, I wouldn't take Scourge at his word that he's stronger than AL and Cal when A. he has no idea how powerful they are and B. he is absurdly cocky and arrogant. Him throwing out blanket statements about how he's better than the guys he's beating on is flimsy grounds for putting him above AL and Cal.
- 15,471
- 22,555
I honestly agree that a Universal Base Sonic would need a stronger backing, though more Chaos Emeralds not equating to more power is contradictory.
- 315
- 56
That's why I said "in this case" examples like the one you gave and 7 emeralds being required for super transformations/the SGW make it clear more emeralds=more power. My point is that isn't the case with the great harmony, there were obviously some sort of shenanigans when Feist combined the emeralds.
- 124
- 15
- Thread starter
- #138
Ok so you admit there's no evidence contradicting that they're stronger. There's evidence showing that they get stronger when added onto each other, so unless it's contradicted, it's the simpler truth that post-harmony emeralds stronger, especially when it's specifically stated they were confused and condensed into 7. Ian Flynn's word doesn't matter because it's contradicted by the comics and guides.
You also failed to acknowledge that him having a chaos emerald isn't the only reason Naugus would be 2-C, it's also because the zone of silence is infinite.
How does mogul having an emerald embedded in his chest, which undeniably has infinite power, not make him a degree of infinite? Also, he was supercharged by Turbo Tails when Sonic fought him, and Sonic also fought Mogul and Naugus in the issue where Mogul had the sword and crown, which I already provided. Mogul holding back on Sonic in 114 is just assumption.
To prove sonic matching mogul is inconsistent, you'd have to give evidence of him losing to base mogul or getting clapped by him on other occassions, which he has not. He's fought base Mogul twice, and both times he was relative to him, so it is indeed consistent.
As far as issue 163 goes. Dude, define "easily defeated." Seems like you intentionally took that out of context, Sonic fights Mogul later on in 164 and is relative and ALSO tanks a directed energy blast just like the one in 114. All Sonic did in 163 was get knocked back by an omnidirectional blast, saying he was defeated is pretty dishonest tbh.
You also failed to acknowledge that him having a chaos emerald isn't the only reason Naugus would be 2-C, it's also because the zone of silence is infinite.
How does mogul having an emerald embedded in his chest, which undeniably has infinite power, not make him a degree of infinite? Also, he was supercharged by Turbo Tails when Sonic fought him, and Sonic also fought Mogul and Naugus in the issue where Mogul had the sword and crown, which I already provided. Mogul holding back on Sonic in 114 is just assumption.
To prove sonic matching mogul is inconsistent, you'd have to give evidence of him losing to base mogul or getting clapped by him on other occassions, which he has not. He's fought base Mogul twice, and both times he was relative to him, so it is indeed consistent.
As far as issue 163 goes. Dude, define "easily defeated." Seems like you intentionally took that out of context, Sonic fights Mogul later on in 164 and is relative and ALSO tanks a directed energy blast just like the one in 114. All Sonic did in 163 was get knocked back by an omnidirectional blast, saying he was defeated is pretty dishonest tbh.
- 769
- 192
Ouch! Foney honestly has some good counterarguments.
- 124
- 15
- Thread starter
- #141
What are you talking about? Quote me please
- 40,470
- 12,953
Im willing to call it water under the bridge.
- 8,375
- 1,749
.... That , IMO , seems more to be "a fierce debater" rather than "intended to hurt their feelings" type of deal.
- 15,706
- 11,448
To be fair, Cal's behavior hasn't been the best either.
The real cal howard said:
- 8,846
- 9,507
Let's not start pointing fingers and just continue with the debate please.
- 15,706
- 11,448
Yes. Indeed.
- 124
- 15
- Thread starter
- #149
@Antvasima Nothing I have ever said on this Wiki that you may classify as "rude and disrespectful" has ever been unwarrented. Every instance you are referring to has been me responding to someone else raising the temprature. I am a fierce debater, yes, but I am never intentionally disrespectful unless it is in response to someone else being so. You are clearly holding a double standard here by threatening to ban me for "disrespecting a mod" even though you're clearly ignoring the fact that they started it, especially in this context.
In conclusion, I'm done with this whole "you're disrespectful, stop it" thing until you hold your own staff to the same standard. Threatening to ban me for simply responding to a change in temprature is a clear abuse of power. If you still want this to go on, you can debate me on it in VC. We can go back through every single instance of when you thought I was being too "rude" or breaking the rules, and I'll prove they're all double standards and responsive. Otherwise, I'm done with this whole shtick of you hiding behind your position.
https://discord.gg/nSgr6y
In conclusion, I'm done with this whole "you're disrespectful, stop it" thing until you hold your own staff to the same standard. Threatening to ban me for simply responding to a change in temprature is a clear abuse of power. If you still want this to go on, you can debate me on it in VC. We can go back through every single instance of when you thought I was being too "rude" or breaking the rules, and I'll prove they're all double standards and responsive. Otherwise, I'm done with this whole shtick of you hiding behind your position.
https://discord.gg/nSgr6y
- 167,862
- 76,484
I don't remotely have the time to engage in some kind of off-wiki chest-thumping competition.
I and the other staff members have worked extremely hard to keep this wiki peaceful and organised. We cannot have regular members who just came here and are completely disrespectful to our authority and are rude to us and other members, and I haven't noticed any instance of us starting to address you with a similar tone. You either have to shape up or leave. It is you choice, as you are currently being a toxic influence who is setting a bad example for the rest of the community.
I and the other staff members have worked extremely hard to keep this wiki peaceful and organised. We cannot have regular members who just came here and are completely disrespectful to our authority and are rude to us and other members, and I haven't noticed any instance of us starting to address you with a similar tone. You either have to shape up or leave. It is you choice, as you are currently being a toxic influence who is setting a bad example for the rest of the community.
- 167,862
- 76,484
Anyway, here are some quotes just from this thread, as you requested, and on top of that there was the extreme disrespect you showed me for my hard work of organising the growth of this community in another thread:
"Unless you're gonna accept my debate challenge and stop ducking, quit crying about revisions just because you don't like them."
"So you admit to holding double standards? Alright cool."
"If mods are allowed to be hostile and add nothing valuable to conversations just for the sake of being mods, you can't expect me to not reply accordingly."
"He didn't say a single thing or give a since scan to debunk the evidence I presented, just hid behind his mod status and commited ad baculum."
"Stop ignoring evidence and nitpicking."
"Tell that to the mods that are supposed to be setting an example and living by their own rules."
"Anyway we're getting off track here as funny as it may be."
"Seems like you intentionally took that out of context"
"saying he was defeated is pretty dishonest tbh"
"I'm done with this whole shtick of you hiding behind your position."
If you are going to be a part of this community, you need to read and follow the Site Rules, Editing Rules, and Discussion Rules. This is not at all the right place for "fierce debating" as you put it. It is supposed to be a peaceful and respectful environment that collaborates to figure out fictional character statistics. That is all, and the staff are working extremely hard to keep it that way.
If you continue to ignore warnings, we will have no choice but to remove you, as people like you make our work considerably more difficult.
"Unless you're gonna accept my debate challenge and stop ducking, quit crying about revisions just because you don't like them."
"So you admit to holding double standards? Alright cool."
"If mods are allowed to be hostile and add nothing valuable to conversations just for the sake of being mods, you can't expect me to not reply accordingly."
"He didn't say a single thing or give a since scan to debunk the evidence I presented, just hid behind his mod status and commited ad baculum."
"Stop ignoring evidence and nitpicking."
"Tell that to the mods that are supposed to be setting an example and living by their own rules."
"Anyway we're getting off track here as funny as it may be."
"Seems like you intentionally took that out of context"
"saying he was defeated is pretty dishonest tbh"
"I'm done with this whole shtick of you hiding behind your position."
If you are going to be a part of this community, you need to read and follow the Site Rules, Editing Rules, and Discussion Rules. This is not at all the right place for "fierce debating" as you put it. It is supposed to be a peaceful and respectful environment that collaborates to figure out fictional character statistics. That is all, and the staff are working extremely hard to keep it that way.
If you continue to ignore warnings, we will have no choice but to remove you, as people like you make our work considerably more difficult.
- 124
- 15
- Thread starter
- #152
You're blatantly ignoring what led up to these quotes, that's pretty dishonest.
"I don't remotely have the time to engage in some kind of off-wiki chest-thumping competition." K, keep ducking. My claim stands uncontested, then. Concession accepted.
The first quote you gave was made in response to the following two quotes:
"Sigh...
Could you guys like, stop making all these threads? Like Jesus, not even DBS in its prime shilled for upgrades this much. At this point I'm thinking the main reason the verse gets upgrades is by overwhelming VSBW with too many threads to fully analyze."
"We have about double the amount of Links and triple the amount of Supermen. You don't see them getting revised twice a week."
This blatantly demonstrates how he's being extremely biased just because he doesn't like the proposed revisions and considers them "shilling." He ignored all the evidence presented and just ranted about not like the revisions.
Second through fifth quotes you gave was me responding to Howard admitting he was going to ban me for doing the same thing he was doing:
"Also talking like that to an admin is a quick way to get yourself banned."
This is said by Howard right after I address him in the same way he was addressing us and this thread, with low respect.
As far as the sixth quote goes. Please explain to me how literally stating what he was doing is disrespectful in any way. I further elaborated on that by stating how he was ignoring evidence and nitpicking. Ironically enough, you're nitpicking now too, as you ignored the context of that quote.
Seventh quote. Ok? What's the point of bringing this one up? Once again by doing this you all but admitting that you and your mods hold double standards.
What are you even on about with this eigthth quote? I literally redirected the conversation back on track because the thread was devolving into a gag thread and going off track. Are you going to criticise me for getting the conversation back on-track now?
Ninth and tenth quotes are the same deal as the sixth. I stated what he was doing, and then explained how they were doing it. I was making a counterargument, how is that at all disrespectful?
Final quote. You are hiding behind your position, it's blatantly obvioius that that's what you're doing. You've demonstrated it time and time again and continue to do so.
Imagine calling debating off-wiki a "chest thumping competition." You're clearly scared to debate me, you make that painfully obvious. This isn't ad hominem, by the way. I'm simply stating a fact, and I'm not dismissing your arguments. I've clearly refuted every single quote you made and proven you're taking them out of context just to make me look bad. So, nice duck, concession accepted, thank you.
"I don't remotely have the time to engage in some kind of off-wiki chest-thumping competition." K, keep ducking. My claim stands uncontested, then. Concession accepted.
The first quote you gave was made in response to the following two quotes:
"Sigh...
Could you guys like, stop making all these threads? Like Jesus, not even DBS in its prime shilled for upgrades this much. At this point I'm thinking the main reason the verse gets upgrades is by overwhelming VSBW with too many threads to fully analyze."
"We have about double the amount of Links and triple the amount of Supermen. You don't see them getting revised twice a week."
This blatantly demonstrates how he's being extremely biased just because he doesn't like the proposed revisions and considers them "shilling." He ignored all the evidence presented and just ranted about not like the revisions.
Second through fifth quotes you gave was me responding to Howard admitting he was going to ban me for doing the same thing he was doing:
"Also talking like that to an admin is a quick way to get yourself banned."
This is said by Howard right after I address him in the same way he was addressing us and this thread, with low respect.
As far as the sixth quote goes. Please explain to me how literally stating what he was doing is disrespectful in any way. I further elaborated on that by stating how he was ignoring evidence and nitpicking. Ironically enough, you're nitpicking now too, as you ignored the context of that quote.
Seventh quote. Ok? What's the point of bringing this one up? Once again by doing this you all but admitting that you and your mods hold double standards.
What are you even on about with this eigthth quote? I literally redirected the conversation back on track because the thread was devolving into a gag thread and going off track. Are you going to criticise me for getting the conversation back on-track now?
Ninth and tenth quotes are the same deal as the sixth. I stated what he was doing, and then explained how they were doing it. I was making a counterargument, how is that at all disrespectful?
Final quote. You are hiding behind your position, it's blatantly obvioius that that's what you're doing. You've demonstrated it time and time again and continue to do so.
Imagine calling debating off-wiki a "chest thumping competition." You're clearly scared to debate me, you make that painfully obvious. This isn't ad hominem, by the way. I'm simply stating a fact, and I'm not dismissing your arguments. I've clearly refuted every single quote you made and proven you're taking them out of context just to make me look bad. So, nice duck, concession accepted, thank you.
- 124
- 15
- Thread starter
- #153
By the way, banning me now, after I've disproven all your claims would clearly demonstrate an abuse of power. You have no justifiable reason to ban me other than "I'm a mod and you're not"
- 167,862
- 76,484
The point is that allowing entirely new members who have contributed nothing to this community to come here to near instantly insult and severely disrespect the people who work extremely hard to keep it running sets an extremely bad example for the rest of the community, and makes the staff's work much harder. You seem to create a toxic atmosphere in virtually every thread that you contribute to, and blatantly ignore warnings to tone down your behaviour.
Also, as you insulted me for in another thread, I work around 12 hours a day with hundreds of different tasks to keep this community running. I do not remotely have the time to engage in off-wiki arguments with extremely hostile members. My job is to keep things peaceful, respectful and organised within the wiki itself.
And yes, banning you after you yet again ignored a warning for your behaviour and showed extreme disrespect, is entirely legitimate.
Cal and I are generally two of the most friendly and helpful staff members, and you have even managed to set us off with your nearly constant toxic manmerisms.
Also, as you insulted me for in another thread, I work around 12 hours a day with hundreds of different tasks to keep this community running. I do not remotely have the time to engage in off-wiki arguments with extremely hostile members. My job is to keep things peaceful, respectful and organised within the wiki itself.
And yes, banning you after you yet again ignored a warning for your behaviour and showed extreme disrespect, is entirely legitimate.
Cal and I are generally two of the most friendly and helpful staff members, and you have even managed to set us off with your nearly constant toxic manmerisms.
- 10,758
- 6,491
I don't think he really set Cal off. In his last reply he even stated that he considers this "water under the bridge".
- 167,862
- 76,484
Maybe, but he has still quickly put into system to come here just to impose his own standards, and severely disrespect and insult any staff members who do not accept them. It would be an extremely bad idea to let him continue to do so. He does not fit in here, and sets extremely bad precedents of behaviour. There are plenty of other communities that are far more aggressive than this one, where he would fit in and that tolerate his kind of behaviour, but our rules explicitly do not.
I am far too overworked to continue to have to deal with his type of hostile user, over and over, while he encourages other members to also consistently insult and disrespect the staff, as they see that they can get away with it.
I am far too overworked to continue to have to deal with his type of hostile user, over and over, while he encourages other members to also consistently insult and disrespect the staff, as they see that they can get away with it.
- 124
- 15
- Thread starter
- #157
Imagine ignoring my counterarguments because you can't debunk them. Guess I'm dismissing your claim then.
Stop playing victim with your "I work 12 hours a day" thing. I don't care. You're not that special.
I've proven that the quotes you used are not ban-worthy in context, and you taking them out of context is dishonest. You preach about setting an example, yet you allow your mods to instigate the same behavior you're criticizing me for.
Concession accepted.
Stop playing victim with your "I work 12 hours a day" thing. I don't care. You're not that special.
I've proven that the quotes you used are not ban-worthy in context, and you taking them out of context is dishonest. You preach about setting an example, yet you allow your mods to instigate the same behavior you're criticizing me for.
Concession accepted.
- 10,758
- 6,491
@Awesome I would advise you to stop assuming the intent of others. That's the biggest source of problem as I see it.
I can assure you Cal isn't banning someone just for rubbing him the wrong way or seriously trying to shut off a discussion just because he doesn't like it. Even if his comments give that impression.
And Ant in general doesn't spend a lot of time in debates it's not because of fear of losing.
In short keep your opinions of everyone to yourself and just try to have a peaceful discussion nothing else.
I can assure you Cal isn't banning someone just for rubbing him the wrong way or seriously trying to shut off a discussion just because he doesn't like it. Even if his comments give that impression.
And Ant in general doesn't spend a lot of time in debates it's not because of fear of losing.
In short keep your opinions of everyone to yourself and just try to have a peaceful discussion nothing else.
- 167,862
- 76,484
I have permanently banned Awsometime. Period. He has ignored warning after warning after warning, and seems to only be here to insult and undermine the staff. It sets a terrible precedent to let him continue, and I genuinely don't remotely have the time and energy to constantly deal with his antics.
- 167,862
- 76,484
To elaborate, his behaviour has been completely unacceptable, and he has systematically ignored all of the warnings that have been afforded him. We have banned many others for considerably less. The current arguments for complete leniency are turning the staff into free-for-all punching bags, and almost nobody nobody will want to work in that kind of environment. If you want to continue to even have a semi-functional wiki, and a staff that do not quit their positions, I strongly suggest that this tendency should be avoided in the future.
It also seems best to close this thread, as it has been derailed far beyond the original purpose.
It also seems best to close this thread, as it has been derailed far beyond the original purpose.
- Status
