Mario AP Downgrade

[Foxthefox1000]

I'm curious on something actually.

What's the ratio like for us to accept higher tiers? Like, say one tier has 50 feats backing it but another has like, 15? Would the one with 15, despite being a considerable amount on it's own, be rejected in favor of the more abundant lesser tier?

 

[Adem_Warlock69]

Tiering ain't about consistency, it's about consistency in-context. You can have 500 Tier 9 feats but if 95% of those feats are casual and you have some strewn about Tier 6 feats, chances are you should be rated at Tier 6, not Tier 9.

This is true, indeed

 

[Kirbonic_Pikmin]

I'm curious on something actually.

What's the ratio like for us to accept higher tiers? Like, say one tier has 50 feats backing it but another has like, 15? Would the one with 15, despite being a considerable amount on it's own, be rejected in favor of the more abundant lesser tier?

I think it can depend on context. If the verse is consistently tier 7 but has a couple tier 5 or 4 feats that aren’t really contradictory/seen as outliers, and the characters don’t struggle to perform tier 7 feats or have a massive amount of outliers, then the tier 7 feats would just be support for the characters being able to perform higher levels of power.

Not an admin but this is my thoughts on something like this.

 

[The_Smashor]

Regardless of weather or not this revision goes through, I think I might be honest-to-god leaving the wiki (With the sole exception of working on Gunvolt profiles because I don't want Smashtwig to deal with that on his own, and MAYBE developing Puyo Puyo because that verse is criminally underdeveloped). I can't deal with this anymore. A small handful of important people's beliefs on an almost entirely opinionated subject matter so much more than everyone else just because they have a little bar under their name. Two dozen people can say no, but because three important people say "Yes" that's the final answer for stats that influence the entire world of versus debating. While I disagree greatly with the people who say this site is an inaccurate joke, it honestly might be best for the world of versus debating that this is public perception.

Who becomes an admin or similar isn't based on experience in versus debating, experience in things like math and quantum physics that are useful in versus debating, who has showcased the most knowledge about a verse... It's about who's willing to do the most busywork. I think that's fine. But that shouldn't give them more power over debates. That shouldn't give them the right to choose where the line in the sand is drawn when so many who are comparable or perhaps greater in knowledge disagree with them.

There's no rhyme or reason to it, if you fix a bunch of spelling mistakes on profiles you're suddenly allowed to choose if Bill Cipher is universal or not. It's madness.

Don't even get me started on the Devil May Cry controversy, or the recent DC Comics nerfs that nobody except a few people at the top agreed with. Somebody was caught bribing someone for ****'s sake. Over fecking RWBY. And there's probably people who have done that or similar and haven't been caught, especially when RWBY isn't a particularly controversial verse. The fact that Staff-Only threads exist at all is a travesty when this hobby is 99% opinions and close enoughs, something where the will of the masses should take preceidence than any sort of high council.

It feels like Versus Battles Wiki has stopped being about versus debating and has become politics and old grudges from a lifetime ago. Grudges even I struggle to work past. And it's always been like this, always one or two Admins stonewalling, one or two Admins pushing something forward.

This thread isn't the sole thing that made me realize this, and it's not necessarily guilty of everything I mentioned here, this is just the straw that broke the camel's back. Death Battle Fanon wiki is where I started versus debating, but Versus Battles Wiki is when I started getting serious about it. Maybe that's why it's taken me this long to realize how fundamentally flawed our systems are. How Admins fundamentally should have no more influence than an experienced user.

If anybody wants to contact me, I'm active on the Smash Bracket Discord server. I won't delete my account or anything, but I'm not gonna check notifications or anything like that any time soon. I'm all but done here. Good night.

 

[Shadyboi0]

Not an admin but this is my thoughts on something like this.

agreed.

 

[Foxthefox1000]

All right, so here's the scoop

Tiering ain't about consistency, it's about consistency in-context. You can have 500 Tier 9 feats but if 95% of those feats are casual and you have some strewn about Tier 6 feats, chances are you should be rated at Tier 6, not Tier 9.

HOWEVER, we also cannot ignore lower feats if they are non-casual or especially in regards to Durability, listen people, Mario has his consistency in tiers 9 and 8, but we need to take a good look at the context of Mario as a franchise to figure out where we should put these characters...

But instead, we're screaming and crying about other verses, whining about which Tier we're gonna use, and arguing over stupid shit.

Here's my little devil's whisper "At least 9-A, likely 8-A, possibly (highest tier 7 feat) at most 6-C"

We have four entire tiers to work with, use em people!

In context all of these feats (even the cosmic ones) have never been done with strain. Everything in Mario has been super casual except when he fought Grand Star amped Bowser as we have a statement of such in Galaxy 2.

The people who say they've "looked" at the blog in the OP truly believing most of that is "non-casual" and "super dangerous" for the characters is beyond me personally but somehow that's the majority opinion here.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

I read it, I just disagree with the stance this wiki takes on outliers.

Pretty spot on with my position here as well. It is what it is.

 

[Deagonx]

What's the ratio like for us to accept higher tiers? Like, say one tier has 50 feats backing it but another has like, 15? Would the one with 15, despite being a considerable amount on it's own, be rejected in favor of the more abundant lesser tier?

There's no set formula, the answer would change based on the context and based on which staff member is being asked.

something where the will of the masses should take preceidence than any sort of high council.

Yeah this is not feasible. Given this approach literally every verse would be wanked to high heaven by the supporters drumming up a big enough FRA train.

I'm all but done here. Good night.

Take care.

 

[KingNanaya]

this had no need to be 4 pages

 

[DaReaperMan]

To Smashor and Deagon: it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, there is no good answer.

In context all of these feats (even the cosmic ones) have never been done with strain. Everything in Mario has been super casual except when he fought Grand Star amped Bowser as we have a statement of such in Galaxy 2.

The people who say they've "looked" at the blog in the OP truly believing most of that is "non-casual" and "super dangerous" for the characters is beyond me personally but somehow that's the majority opinion here.

Bowser died to like, a Tier 8 crushing like 3 times in Bowser's Inside Story. Or at least was knocked out from it. So uh, no, not every feat is casual-

 

[Theuser789]

I look away for five seconds. Alright, let me just look at these anti-feats real quick one-by-one.

Mario Party:
Ultimately the Mario cast still survives all this, and the main reason they get hurt is either Game Mechanics so that the minigame can happen or for the sake of comedy. Mario Party is an event that the entire cast agrees to do and is completely fine with, it would make no sense if they were actually in any mortal danger or constantly were receiving immense amounts of pain; not to mention in the various story modes characters rarely seem to be hurt after a minigame even if it's somehow painful. As for the examples given...

Bowser is barely affected by this explosion, Attack Potency =/= Destructive Capability, and again Bowser barely flinches in the face of these bombs I'd hardly call this an anti-feat just because his video game health bar went down. The sign here was something they did not see coming and they didn't brace themselves for it which means that ultimately the sign just had to overpower their weight and it otherwise left them briefly stunned and unharmed, Wario is only briefly stunned by this explosion and is ultimately unharmed despite losing coins, and Banzai Bills are weapons specifically made by Bowser and his minions to combat Mario it only makes sense they could harm him. And in this instance, again, because Peach had no footing this means that the meteor would only need to overpower her weight, which due to her being in space was zero. So yeah, these are pretty weak anti-feats, and I seriously doubt the ones that weren't listed are much better.

Bowser and Lava:

• Given Bowser survives lava, usually without taking any damage, literally every other time; this is an outlier in the face of Bowser's other feats involving lava.
• Bowser isn't burned here at all, he just can't reach Mario at this point, we even see later on that Bowser is little more than stunned by this.
• Again, this is just the floor opening up under Bowser, he's not actually hurt he just can no longer reach Mario. This is less an anti-feat and more proof Bowser does not know how to swim, which makes sense since he sinks like a rock.
• Yet again, there's little to no proof Bowser is hurt by the lava itself, the main issue is that Bowser has been removed from the battlefield without a way to reach Mario.
• Again, this is proof that Bowser can't swim more than anything else. Bowser isn't shown to be damaged, he just can't ******* swim.
• This seems to be more a comical thing since Bowser's behind was set on fire and nothing else, similar to how Mario and Luigi are damaged by lava in the 3D games, and is inconsistent with Bowser being entirely undamaged by lava every other time.
• Literally no proof Bowser was actually damaged, he just sinks like a rock, which is pretty consistent. Again, this is less Bowser being damaged by lava and Bowser not being able to swim.

Bowser and Falling:

• Bowser cannot fly, at least most of the time, so this is most likely yet another instance of Bowser being BFR'd. There's no evidence Bowser was actually damaged by the fall. Additionally, using long falls as an anti-feat is looked down upon in general, much like characters being threatened by bullets, considering writers almost always vastly overestimate the potency of such things.
• Again, Bowser clearly is not on his A game in NSMBDS, this is most likely an outlier compared to his other feats. Not to mention, law of regeneration, if someone can regenerate from a blow they're probably gonna be more vulnerable than they realisitically should be for the sake of showcasing that regeneration.
• Yet again, there's no evidence Bowser was actually damaged by this. Bowser cannot fly and he likely fell longer than he jump, this is Bowser being BFR'd.
• How many times do you want me to say the exact same thing?
• Like, do you want me to mention that Bowser only screams on his way down and dosn't scream in pain or anything when he actually hits the ground?
• This is one I will confess I don't have a good answer to, but considering Mario is completely unharmed by a similar fall in the same game I think it's fine to call this an inconsistency.
• And yeah, Mario is completely unharmed by this. He takes zero damage, he just does a funny animation.

Other:

• I strongly doubt Bowser's castles are gonna be less durable than Mario, especially considering one of his castles can fight Giant Bowser, which means that the explosion would likely need to be able to damage Mario to bring it down.
• Same reasoning as before
• I don't know why this wasn't in the falling segment, but this is actually valid. However, it's an outlier in the fact of Bowser's many, MANY higher feats.
• Bob-Ombs are weapons made in order to damage Mario and other enemies of Bowser, and if they couldn't damage Mario it would be stupid for Bowser to throw them at him.
• Frankly, Bowser's scream seems to come more from surprise, frustration and annoyance than from pain. Which makes sense, I doubt these castles are cheap.
• This one is valid I will confess, but at the same time being shot out of a cannon is something that writers also often overestimate in fiction.
• Again, these bombs were in Bowser's home turf, they were likely made to be able to damage his enemies who are comparable to him.
• The same Boomsday Machine which is comparable to Mario in power and durability, and an explosion would need to be comparable to if not superior to Mario's power in order to destroy it.
• Bowser's hand doesn't appear to be hurt at all, he just struggles to pull it out.
• Because Bowser had no footing at the time, those rocks would only need to overpower his weight. Bowser doesn't really appear harmed by these rocks (No black eye or other similar comedic injury)
• Again, attack potency =/= destructive capability. And it's not stated Mario needed Bowser's help for this anyways, it could have just been the most convenient way to get all three of them outta there. Not to mention it's pretty obvious the moon rocks are in some way supernatural.
• The beam appears to be electric in nature, which is consistent with the dragon's electric attacks in the fight. Because metal conducts electricity, electricity will rarely destroy anything made of metal.
• These cannonballs were fired from Bowser's ship and are Bowser's weapons, likely meant to damage Bowser's enemies and would naturally compare to the durability of said enemies.
• Once again, Bob-Ombs are weapons meant to damage Bowser's enemies. This is more of a feat for Bob-Ombs than an anti-feat for Mario.
• Context is important here. Mario was most likely sent flying by Exor (Since literally what else could have done it?), who is able to damage Mario when he's much stronger later in the game.
• If Mario was actually threatened by this at all he wouldn't have agreed to use the cannon to begin with, given it was used to transport Mario to the moon. And Mario is briefly stunned at worst, and in fact is in the same pose he was in before.
• Luigi dosn't appear hurt by this at all, he simply didn't land on his feet.
• This same bomb can damage Mario's enemies and it clearly scales to his power and durability Hell, when empowered by the Pure Hearts it can damage Count Bleck and Super Dimentio. And again, Bowser's castles can literally throw hands with him, they're more durable than regular castles.
• For an explosion to destroy the Brobot, it would need to be comparable to the Brobot's durability.
• Mario literally just gets up and dusts himself off a second after leaving the elevator, he was not hurt here.
• Fodder Bob-Ombs like Bobby are used time and again to fight Mario, and again Attack Potency =/= Destructive Capability.
• The only risk to Oliva is "Getting Crumpled", and Olivia literally survives the explosion that destroys the boulder completely unharmed.
• Once again, Bowser's castles can throw hands with him and to destroy the castle an explosion would need to compare to his durability.
• This explosion is from a Bob-Omb, which are weapons meant to damage people on Mario and Luigi's level.
• This is Bowser's airship, it's not unlikely it's similar in durability to his castles.
• This is a valid anti-feat, but it's also an outlier compared to Mario and Luigi being almost entirely unharmed by similar or greater falls.
• Luigi clearly isn't actually harmed by this considering he jumps up and down just afterwards, this is just a cartoon flattening.
• Yoob's eggs should probably compare to Yoshi eggs, which are used by Yoshis to damage Bowser and should compare to their regular attack power.
• Again, Bob-Ombs are weapons used against Bowser's enemies like Mario, they should compare to Bowser's durability espesially in large groups.
• Yeah, no, this is also lifting strength, he's pushing it. Not to mention it's a giant-ass drill, the fact it's not drilling through the rock on it's own is questionable, which could mean the rock is more durable than normal rock.
• This rock wall is being used to block off captured Koopas, it seems likely that Fawful would have such a wall be durable enough to stop the main person who would try to rescue the Koopas. And again, Attack Potency =/= Destructive Capability
• This same castle can damage Giant Bowser and is likely made to be able hurt Bowser.
• This same Tower of Yikk is able to fight Giant Bowser later on.
• The Fawful Express was later able to damage Giant Bowser with it's weapons. He's also rammed into what appears the same type of rock that a big-ass drill could not break.
• The same mechanized castle that was able to fight Giant Bowser later on.
• Attack Potency =/= Destructive Capability, and Roy was clearly not trying to destroy the rock but instead wanted to hurt Mario with it, and Mario likely had the same goal.
• The same papercraft creations that can damage enemies comparable or superior to Mario with physical attacks. Not an anti-feat.
• Iron balls launched by Bowser as weapons that logically should be capable of damaging the Mario Brothers.
• This is done via Bob-Ombs, which are weapons Bowser uses against the... you get it.
• This explosion is from King Bob-Omb, who is able to take several hits from Mario and logically an explosion that destroys him would need to be far stronger.
• The boss in question is a ghost possessing an ice wall, it being a glass cannon would honestly make sense. Frankly I don't have enough context to say much about this one.
• Something something meant to be a weapon to damage Bowser's enemies something something scales to his durability.

This is a total of 5 valid anti-feats from 3 different games.

Needless to say, I disagree with the AP nerf.

You cooked.

Disagree for Smashor's reasons.

 

[Adem_Warlock69]

The likely, possibly, at most thingy is probably the best compromise for the Mainline Mario characters (Paper Mario ain't as inconsistent)

 

[DaReaperMan]

The likely, possibly, at most thingy is probably the best compromise for the Mainline Mario characters (Paper Mario ain't as inconsistent)

It's such a stupid look but really, it's saying "they're this ******* inconsistent" without throwing a "Varies" on there

 

[Agnaa]

I'm curious on something actually.

What's the ratio like for us to accept higher tiers? Like, say one tier has 50 feats backing it but another has like, 15? Would the one with 15, despite being a considerable amount on it's own, be rejected in favor of the more abundant lesser tier?

As I said before, I think the metric should be the tier where the number of anti-feats capping their power below that tier is equal to the number of feats placing their power at or above that tier.

I've also seen suggestions along the lines of, choosing the tier where the number of feats on/around that tier, minus the number of anti-feats capping their power below that tier, is highest. But I'm not as big of a fan of that.

imo either would be better than just sticking with the highest tier that has >1 feat, in the face of dozens of anti-feats

Who becomes an admin or similar isn't based on experience in versus debating, experience in things like math and quantum physics that are useful in versus debating, who has showcased the most knowledge about a verse... It's about who's willing to do the most busywork. I think that's fine. But that shouldn't give them more power over debates. That shouldn't give them the right to choose where the line in the sand is drawn when so many who are comparable or perhaps greater in knowledge disagree with them.

There's no rhyme or reason to it, if you fix a bunch of spelling mistakes on profiles you're suddenly allowed to choose if Bill Cipher is universal or not. It's madness.

It is based on those things you idealize; those sorts of users get promoted way faster. And there's many users who have done a lot of busywork, but haven't been promoted due to issues with behaviour and reasoning.

Plus, that sorta busywork usually gets people promoted to Content Moderator, which doesn't have as wide-ranging evaluation rights.

Don't even get me started on the Devil May Cry controversy, or the recent DC Comics nerfs that nobody except a few people at the top agreed with. Somebody was caught bribing someone for ****'s sake. Over fecking RWBY. And there's probably people who have done that or similar and haven't been caught, especially when RWBY isn't a particularly controversial verse. The fact that Staff-Only threads exist at all is a travesty when this hobby is 99% opinions and close enoughs, something where the will of the masses should take preceidence than any sort of high council.

The way I see it, staff are meant to keep things consistent across different series with different fanbases. The decisions are arbitrary, but we're meant to apply the same arbitrary standard to as many series as possible. Which does require a group of people who know those standards, can agree on them for the site as whole, and enforce the application of those on particular verses.

It feels like Versus Battles Wiki has stopped being about versus debating and has become politics and old grudges from a lifetime ago. Grudges even I struggle to work past. And it's always been like this, always one or two Admins stonewalling, one or two Admins pushing something forward.

I don't think the situation's that dire. One of the things we try to select for in staff members is not just the ability to convince others, but to be convinced; to not obstinately stick to the views they came into something with.

Because of that, there's a good chance at convincing staff with good arguments if you're non-staff. I was able to do that a shitton during the ~5 years I wasn't staff. I got accepted calcs rejected, I changed the tides of site-wide revisions. Even if there are some stubborn staff members, there's dozens with evaluation rights around, able to overrule if their attention's brought to a thread.

But hey, I get the frustration to some extent. I've seen some real bad shit get stonewalled and forced through, and I've had to take a lotta breaks from the stress of that sorta thing. I wish you the best, you've generally been a Cool Dude.

 

[y3p_owo]

I disagree via Smashor's reasoning and I hope he does well.

 

[StretchSebe]

Regardless of weather or not this revision goes through, I think I might be honest-to-god leaving the wiki (With the sole exception of working on Gunvolt profiles because I don't want Smashtwig to deal with that on his own, and MAYBE developing Puyo Puyo because that verse is criminally underdeveloped). I can't deal with this anymore. A small handful of important people's beliefs on an almost entirely opinionated subject matter so much more than everyone else just because they have a little bar under their name. Two dozen people can say no, but because three important people say "Yes" that's the final answer for stats that influence the entire world of versus debating. While I disagree greatly with the people who say this site is an inaccurate joke, it honestly might be best for the world of versus debating that this is public perception.

Who becomes an admin or similar isn't based on experience in versus debating, experience in things like math and quantum physics that are useful in versus debating, who has showcased the most knowledge about a verse... It's about who's willing to do the most busywork. I think that's fine. But that shouldn't give them more power over debates. That shouldn't give them the right to choose where the line in the sand is drawn when so many who are comparable or perhaps greater in knowledge disagree with them.

There's no rhyme or reason to it, if you fix a bunch of spelling mistakes on profiles you're suddenly allowed to choose if Bill Cipher is universal or not. It's madness.

Don't even get me started on the Devil May Cry controversy, or the recent DC Comics nerfs that nobody except a few people at the top agreed with. Somebody was caught bribing someone for ****'s sake. Over fecking RWBY. And there's probably people who have done that or similar and haven't been caught, especially when RWBY isn't a particularly controversial verse. The fact that Staff-Only threads exist at all is a travesty when this hobby is 99% opinions and close enoughs, something where the will of the masses should take preceidence than any sort of high council.

It feels like Versus Battles Wiki has stopped being about versus debating and has become politics and old grudges from a lifetime ago. Grudges even I struggle to work past. And it's always been like this, always one or two Admins stonewalling, one or two Admins pushing something forward.

This thread isn't the sole thing that made me realize this, and it's not necessarily guilty of everything I mentioned here, this is just the straw that broke the camel's back. Death Battle Fanon wiki is where I started versus debating, but Versus Battles Wiki is when I started getting serious about it. Maybe that's why it's taken me this long to realize how fundamentally flawed our systems are. How Admins fundamentally should have no more influence than an experienced user.

If anybody wants to contact me, I'm active on the Smash Bracket Discord server. I won't delete my account or anything, but I'm not gonna check notifications or anything like that any time soon. I'm all but done here. Good night.

I've been experiencing a lot of this lately too. It's at least validating to see someone with more history than me opening up about it.

It's a shame. It doesn't have to be this way. Maybe it's fallacious for me to be looking at other battleboard wikis like they're greener pastures, as they probably have their own problems. Maybe I shouldn't comment on it given I already upset multiple mods in this thread, and have far less history, only joining within the year...

But I got legit got shadow banned from calculation evaluations for a straight month by a belligerent mod not liking what I was doing. I bring up the obvious to another member of administration and get the most obviously fake response, finding calculations of mine only getting evaluated when a literal period of 30 days had passed since that one that got a mod upset. More recently, I've had the experience of two mods getting angry with me for disagreeing and arguing for what I do, based on the information I have, and experience with topics I do. I was asked to help in one of these threads, and was met with aggression...

It's especially bad to see that decisions for scaling/tiering aren't made democratically, by the people who actually care about, and are willing to spend time supporting and arguing for fictions and verses. Instead, it is done by impassionate bureaucrats, who personally, have admit to cherry-picking what arguments/points they'll sincerely read/consider, engaged in a fallacy listed on the wiki because some name I don't know was involved (like you say, petty grudges and politics), and I got strawmanned twice in the same thread (let alone in others) by moderators who openly indicate they to want to misinterpret what I clearly say, or disengage with it entirely.

Man, I try to be optimistic about things, and not get too jaded, but this thread has been telling. I hope well for you too, Smashor. You don't deserve such poor treatment.

 

[Deagonx]

Maybe it's fallacious for me to be looking at other battleboard wikis like they're greener pastures, as they probably have their own problems.

All of the other battleboard wikis are more or less off-shoots of this one by people who had different perspectives on scaling. It may very well be the case that those wikis are more suited to your personal battleboarding philosophy.

But I got legit got shadow banned from calculation evaluations for a straight month by a belligerent mod not liking what I was doing. I bring up the obvious to another member of administration and get the most obviously fake response, finding calculations of mine only getting evaluated when a literal period of 30 days had passed since that one that got a mod upset.

I am not sure such a thing is possible? I might be wrong, but I don't know that there is any mechanism to shadowban calc evaluations.

It's especially bad to see that decisions for scaling/tiering aren't made democratically, by the people who actually care about, and are willing to spend time supporting and arguing for fictions and verses.

As I told Smashor, pure democracy would be chaos given that the largest segment of any thread is made up of users who support the verse. The only feasible bulwark against bandwagoning every verse to unreasonable upgrades is the fact that this site is not a direct democracy and shouldn't be.

The way that other non-indexing communities solve this is the fact that their threads revolve solely around matchups, not profiles, which means supporters of the opponent's verse are there to call them on nonsense.

 

[Magicomethkuon]

Regardless of weather or not this revision goes through, I think I might be honest-to-god leaving the wiki (With the sole exception of working on Gunvolt profiles because I don't want Smashtwig to deal with that on his own, and MAYBE developing Puyo Puyo because that verse is criminally underdeveloped). I can't deal with this anymore. A small handful of important people's beliefs on an almost entirely opinionated subject matter so much more than everyone else just because they have a little bar under their name. Two dozen people can say no, but because three important people say "Yes" that's the final answer for stats that influence the entire world of versus debating. While I disagree greatly with the people who say this site is an inaccurate joke, it honestly might be best for the world of versus debating that this is public perception.

Who becomes an admin or similar isn't based on experience in versus debating, experience in things like math and quantum physics that are useful in versus debating, who has showcased the most knowledge about a verse... It's about who's willing to do the most busywork. I think that's fine. But that shouldn't give them more power over debates. That shouldn't give them the right to choose where the line in the sand is drawn when so many who are comparable or perhaps greater in knowledge disagree with them.

There's no rhyme or reason to it, if you fix a bunch of spelling mistakes on profiles you're suddenly allowed to choose if Bill Cipher is universal or not. It's madness.

Don't even get me started on the Devil May Cry controversy, or the recent DC Comics nerfs that nobody except a few people at the top agreed with. Somebody was caught bribing someone for ****'s sake. Over fecking RWBY. And there's probably people who have done that or similar and haven't been caught, especially when RWBY isn't a particularly controversial verse. The fact that Staff-Only threads exist at all is a travesty when this hobby is 99% opinions and close enoughs, something where the will of the masses should take preceidence than any sort of high council.

It feels like Versus Battles Wiki has stopped being about versus debating and has become politics and old grudges from a lifetime ago. Grudges even I struggle to work past. And it's always been like this, always one or two Admins stonewalling, one or two Admins pushing something forward.

This thread isn't the sole thing that made me realize this, and it's not necessarily guilty of everything I mentioned here, this is just the straw that broke the camel's back. Death Battle Fanon wiki is where I started versus debating, but Versus Battles Wiki is when I started getting serious about it. Maybe that's why it's taken me this long to realize how fundamentally flawed our systems are. How Admins fundamentally should have no more influence than an experienced user.

If anybody wants to contact me, I'm active on the Smash Bracket Discord server. I won't delete my account or anything, but I'm not gonna check notifications or anything like that any time soon. I'm all but done here. Good night.

Skip paragraphs and jump to In conclusion if you think this is a too long, didn't read skill issue that I'm having.

About this, I also don't like everything about the policy of only staff votes count. Like any form of human resources. A number of people can dedicate only so much work for a hobby, and balance only so much of that time between other staff responsibilities and real life. No one can be expected to know about every franchise in the jungle either.

But personal opinions aside, we must understand and admit past the blue names don't matter jokes that a modicum of management is necessary before anything will fall into anarchy. This is true not only to power scaling, but to all aspects of life.

All of us here have things which we want to change. Whether it's about statistics, a character, franchise or a power. Whether order for that process to happen comes in the form of staff or the system that these forums rate is a topic of much discussion. But without that order things can fall apart in much worse ways. There isn't a perfect place anywhere, we compromise. But I dealt with so much more frustration in places without regulation. Where anyone can stake claims as they please without being held to standards.

In conclusion: I said all this. But for what this thread is worth it can't be blamed for any of the problems that you may have with staff votes, it's been open to the public and a lot of normal users agreed or are being an active part of the discussion. I think that it's unfair with the work and discussion had here, to imply that a case of staff influence is reason for the downgrade.

 

[Agnaa]

I am not sure such a thing is possible? I might be wrong, but I don't know that there is any mechanism to shadowban calc evaluations.

There's no good way to do it, and I've never heard of it being done before (and I'd have to know, if they truly wanted all CGMs to enforce it).

The only place where something like that could be communicated is the calc group member group DM, which is rarely posted in, and is just full of stuff like "How do you calculate this?" "We should add this new calc-related rule" "Be careful when evaluating calcs like this".

Really, something like that (shadowbanning someone from evaluations because of a personal grudge) would just come off as obscenely petty, and I'd whistleblow about it immediately. We've done some calc bans before, but they're extensively talked about publicly, and the user involved is notified.

 

[Seol404]

The downgrades in this thread are blatantly holding Mario to a different standard to how over 90% of the wiki is held, regardless of what the Wiki's standards officially are. If every verse was held to this same standard, Planet level basically wouldn't exist.

It feels like Versus Battles Wiki has stopped being about versus debating and has become politics and old grudges from a lifetime ago. Grudges even I struggle to work past. And it's always been like this, always one or two Admins stonewalling, one or two Admins pushing something forward.

Accusing a side of bad faith by claiming they are targeting Mario out of bias and ignoring issues found in other verses while complaining about the site being politics and grudges is a little bit cringe me thinks.

Nobody who has supported this thread has claimed they wouldn't be willing to downgrade any other verse if the evidence for the downgrade was strong enough, no matter how many times you claim we don't hold other verses to the standard we are holding Mario to in this thread it will not make it true. Just because Mario is being downgraded does not mean the people proposing the downgrade think other verses are perfect.

I really do not mean to be rude here but I am getting rather tired of the constant whining about how the downgrades are unfair and everyone is biased against Mario. It is not an argument, it does not counter any points, it's just petty mud flinging to paint the people who support the downgrade in a negative light.

I do not mean to be rude here but posting your leaving announcement at this time and place comes off as a distraction tactic to garner sympathy from people and derail into an airing of grievances about how the Wiki has wronged you, which seems to have paid off in part, at least. I would prefer all posts going forward to actually relate to the topic at hand instead of petty finger pointing please and thank you.

 

[Prime2024]

Anyway I read the blog and tier 9 or low tier 8 seems to be far more consistent, there are only very few tier 7 feats, some of them come from Mario being thrown to the moon and Luigi falling from space and while feats like this can reach tier 7 due to KE except the damage to the environment doesn't seems to be anywhere near tier 7 like at all....for starters Mario Moon feat seems to contradict the KE page since we can clearly see that the moon received almost no damage from the fall (see 7:23)


And Luigi falling from space barely did any damage to the ground as well....so I doubt those feats can even be considered tier 8 much less tier 7

Still this

 

[Da_Lunge_Fish]

Skip paragraphs and jump to In conclusion if you think this is a too long, didn't read skill issue that I'm having.

About this, I also don't like everything about the policy of only staff votes count. Like any form of human resources. A number of people can dedicate only so much work for a hobby, and balance only so much of that time between other staff responsibilities and real life. No one can be expected to know about every franchise in the jungle either.

But personal opinions aside, we must understand and admit past the blue names don't matter jokes that a modicum of management is necessary before anything will fall into anarchy. This is true not only to power scaling, but to all aspects of life.

All of us here have things which we want to change. Whether it's about statistics, a character, franchise or a power. Whether order for that process to happen comes in the form of staff or the system that these forums rate is a topic of much discussion. But without that order things can fall apart in much worse ways. There isn't a perfect place anywhere, we compromise. But I dealt with so much more frustration in places without regulation. Where anyone can stake claims as they please without being held to standards.

In conclusion: I said all this. But for what this thread is worth it can't be blamed for any of the problems that you may have with staff votes, it's been open to the public and a lot of normal users agreed or are being an active part of the discussion. I think that it's unfair with the work and discussion had here, to imply that a case of staff influence is reason for the downgrade.

So it only should be 100% one or the other way?

 

[Da_Lunge_Fish]

Accusing a side of bad faith by claiming they are targeting Mario out of bias and ignoring issues found in other verses while complaining about the site being politics and grudges is a little bit cringe me thinks.

Nobody who has supported this thread has claimed they wouldn't be willing to downgrade any other verse if the evidence for the downgrade was strong enough, no matter how many times you claim we don't hold other verses to the standard we are holding Mario to in this thread it will not make it true. Just because Mario is being downgraded does not mean the people proposing the downgrade think other verses are perfect.

I really do not mean to be rude here but I am getting rather tired of the constant whining about how the downgrades are unfair and everyone is biased against Mario. It is not an argument, it does not counter any points, it's just petty mud flinging to paint the people who support the downgrade in a negative light.

I do not mean to be rude here but posting your leaving announcement at this time and place comes off as a distraction tactic to garner sympathy from people and derail into an airing of grievances about how the Wiki has wronged you, which seems to have paid off in part, at least. I would prefer all posts going forward to actually relate to the topic at hand instead of petty finger pointing please and thank you.

I'm sorry, considering a whole bloody discord server was created before to downgrade mario, i really can't blame anyone for thinking something is up here in terms of bias

 

[Magicomethkuon]

So it only should be 100% one or the other way?

Personal experience, I don't feel like the order here is suffocating. You know what they say, different people, different reactions. Regardless,the thread has acknowledged that leave and I suggest that we lay this topic to rest. It does nothing to advance the relevant proposal and it has now become plain counter-productive (derailing) to prolong it.

 

[Foxthefox1000]

Asking for clarification:

This is only a base cast downgrade?

Would being a higher tier with Power Stars still be acceptable?

 

[Deagonx]

I've been accused of bias against every verse I have ever participated in a downgrade for. It's an empty accusation cast by people who cannot understand that not everyone sees things the same way they do, or has the same scaling philosophy.

 

[Foxthefox1000]

Nothing compared to the Mario wanking that has plagued the entire battle-boarding sphere for years.

That's a little unnecessary.

 

[Robo432343]

I've been accused of bias against every verse I have ever participated in a downgrade for. It's an empty accusation cast by people who cannot understand that not everyone sees things the same way they do, or has the same scaling philosophy.

i can see why
i think they noticed that you agree with 99% downgrade threads and disagree with 99% upgrade threads

 

[Deagonx]

i think they noticed that you agree with 99% downgrade threads and disagree with 99% upgrade threads

Right, because my scaling philosophy is a lot more conservative than most people's, not because I have something against specific verses.

 

[DaReaperMan]

Asking for clarification:

This is only a base cast downgrade?

Would being a higher tier with Power Stars still be acceptable?

I would be chill with that for the actual named characters, if it was a fodder in the first place, then uh, no.

I've been accused of bias against every verse I have ever participated in a downgrade for. It's an empty accusation cast by people who cannot understand that not everyone sees things the same way they do, or has the same scaling philosophy.

Eh, you're a fan of low stats, so that's probably partially why

 

[Foxthefox1000]

If the Base Cast has to be downgraded, but the higher tiers can stay due to the consistency of Power Stars/Grand Stars themselves and it's just a separate key on the profile I think that's a fine compromise for everyone involved.

 

[Agnaa]

I'm sorry, considering a whole bloody discord server was created before to downgrade mario, i really can't blame anyone for thinking something is up here in terms of bias

fwiw, I'm only here because I saw Armor occasionally posting about working on this revision in some other vsbw-adjacent Discords, and I saw him offhandedly mention it in one of them a day or so ago, so I was curious about how it was going.

I wasn't asked to come here, involved in the planning, etc.

@Da_Lunge_Fish An old Comicvine post of Deagon's about Marvel and DC is wholly irrelevant to this thread.

 

[Adem_Warlock69]

I am definitely biased against Mario ngl
Not much that can be done about it

 

[CloverDragon03]

Tbh I think Smashor's comprehensive analysis of the anti-feat collection has me even more convinced of being against the downgrade, even beyond the fundamental issues I have with the thread's proposals. To me it's starting to seem like most of the anti-feats don't really hold up when looked at in context

 

[CloverDragon03]

Also even if the base cast gets downgraded, I think Power/Grand Star users should remain 3-C because Power Stars/Grand Stars are actually very consistently around this range

 

[EliminatorVenom]

Sorry for the long time to respond, Armor. I was a bit busy with uni and I genuinely just forgot to check around here

With that being said, it's been a doozy reading everything. This thread got very big and with some very ugly discussions, but I get the general point everyone was trying to make, and the indignation some have expressed here. I may have missed something, but in any case, just to make it easy for anyone in the future who is skimming past the threads and whatever, I will bold the parts of my commentary that TL;DR what I will write. Hope that helps.

On the issue at hand and the discussion held by Armor, I am in agreement with a downgrade, although I am of opinion that, with the evidence provided and discussion had here, particularly with Smashor's and Armor's arguments, that tier 8 is the most consistent one, probably around the 8-A range from eyeballing, but I also like DaReaperMan's suggestion of making a tier consisting of "at least X value, likely Y value, possibly Z value", or something like that. It feels apt for the kind of series that Mario is. I believe further threads will be necessary to tackle the issues pointed out earlier about a possible Mario Galaxy key and DDM's statements. Personally, I believe that at least tier 4, if not 3 for a Mario Galaxy and Grand Star-scaling tier are feasible.

On my personal opinion on the anti-feats and the discussion that was had on that topic, the first thing I must point out is that while it is an important discussion, the topic of validity of anti-feats should be tackled on a separate thread, so my opinion on this paragraph may be ignored on the context of this thread. I fully and deeply understand the indignation at the current policy and the need to debate it, but this discussion has only derailed and, rereading it, visibly distressed many members from both staff and the wider community on this thread, which is understandable, given how important Mario is as a verse. That being said, I'll say this: While personally the standards may be fine, this thread has shown the need to perhaps increase the given explanation and perhaps even have a dedicated page or blog post to it. Verses like Mario are, however, inherently difficult to consistently tier, and there is a point to be made on its actual possibility, in a not too dissimilar a vein from something like Bugs Bunny. It reminds me of a previous suggestion a long time ago about separating Mario on the arbitrary scale of different eras and groups of games - I know that it most likely isn't feasible and not the purpose of this thread, but I do like it, conceptually at least. On a more personal note, I have a personal method of evaluating characters that is very different from the wiki's standards, so everything I write here is on the context of the currently used standards, not on my own preferences.

Oh, by the way @Agnaa - do you require assistance in checking out your blogs about ItRtG? It is outside my knowledge, but I can at least check the feats and logic out.

 

[Agnaa]

Oh, by the way @Agnaa - do you require assistance in checking out your blogs about ItRtG? It is outside my knowledge, but I can at least check the feats and logic out.

Naw. The only assistance I really needs is with documenting and calculating the rest of the feats, which seems too far outside your wheelhouse.

 

[Mephistus]

Can this ever be evaluated ? https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:CloverDragon03/Super_Mario_Galaxy:_Planetary_Explosion

No way that is that planet the size of earth. It's nothing beyond 100 meters wide even compared to the planetoids around it with Mario and Bowser being near it/on them prior to the boom.

 

[Adem_Warlock69]

No way that is that planet the size of earth. It's nothing beyond 100 meters wide even compared to the planetoids around it with Mario and Bowser being near it/on them prior to the boom.

All planets in Mario are kinda small

 

[Foxthefox1000]

Personally I don't like those size arguments because the intent is clearly for them to be planets and stars and galaxies but they chose to depict them in a manner befitting Mario rather than go anime with it like Asura. We know the series can depict accurate celestial bodies it's just rarer.

But that's me. I know this wiki sees it differently