My "The Average Human" profile discussion thread

[James_Plays_4_Games]

Before we settle the verdict, just want to quickly state a few points myself.

1: If I'm not wrong, the main rules about having real-life people is having SPECIFIC (mostly famous or otherwise notable, which also extends to stuff like targeting other people by either real or online name) real-life individuals as main subjects/topics of a wiki itself or a wiki/forum article/thread (so not as examples of feats or other less major parts of the discussion), so if we're talking about any general human or the human species as a whole (same as we do with other living beings in real life, thus addressing the point about moral standing of living beings with regard to comparing humans to other living beings), that should not pose an issue.

2: I find the "brutality and ethics" point as well as the "knowledge of how to kill people" point both a bit weird as well, because ironically enough, Wikipedia has detailed articles on how specific people have died as well as what stuff in the universe is deadly to us and how/why they are deadly (such as toxic chemicals and radiation and various types of injury, at times with graphic potential NSFW/NSFL imagery and/or details), and while I can understand that Fandom and forums do not have the same ruleset as Wikipedia and I agree about not discussing specific individuals and not using graphic imagery or details, there have been many brutal fictional and real events of the sort on various platforms of media.
Again, as a compromise, I would think discussing general means as to how any general real-life living being (so again, not specific named/famous/notable individuals) can be harmed and/or die (as well as how and why such means are life-threatening and otherwise harmful) in addition to how they can be helped and/or brought (back) to life or otherwise have their life sustained (as well as how and why such means are life-saving and otherwise helpful) would be overall acceptable to a degree in the name of information dissemination as long as we adhere to the above about not discussing specific individuals and not using graphic potential NSFW/NSFL imagery and/or details.

These look like good points. I was already aware that real individuals aren't allowed to be indexed, meanwhile the entire point of "The Real World" being on the VS Battles Wiki is just to be used as a general reference when real things appear in fiction, but I figured there was something inappropriate about using real information about criminals as evidence. I know real criminology itself isn't bad, but I went along with not including it just to be safe. Should we check in with an administrator to confirm whether or not adding real criminology to the profile would be against the rules?

3: To be honest, I'd rather just keep the Composite Human profile and not use an Average Human profile since "average" is hard to define/measure and often subject to context and expectations which would lead us to a LOT of debating due to the inherent near-limitless potential we have (only limited by our resources and characteristics/traits), whereas peak of abilities is easier to define/measure, and due to our format on profiles, is easier to structure and leaves less room for debate.

Fair opinion, but whether or not the profile will be prepared doesn't look like it's up for debate.

4: Additionally, regarding prehistoric and modern humans (using perhaps the period of the starting of civilisations (the general part of human history where civilisations began to arise, as we transitioned from more active hunting and gathering to more sedentary agriculture) as the boundary for prehistoric vs modern), we should always keep in mind that the daily lives of those different types of humans are vastly different due to our different lifestyles and demands for sustainment of such lifestyles, which also correlate with the different features/characteristics/traits that were developed during the evolution of these different types of humans (H3, sorry, but I suggest that you look back to the articles I sent you about the archaic humans since they had details about their anatomy).
For example, we should consider that prehistoric humans would have to hunt large prey animals such as bison and compete with other predators such as the big cats and bears with relatively crude and primitive tools such as wooden fire-hardened and/or stone-tipped spears, clubs and perhaps bows and arrows as well as strategies/tactics like endurance hunting, whereas by the time civilisation arose and modern humans started to flourish, said modern humans would have domesticated animals and plants to either aid them or sustain them, and also developed more efficient and effective tactics and tools for defence and offence which could be used for both hunting and combat (as noted by depictions of gymnasiums and fighting techniques and weapons in ancient civilisations).

That seems right to me. Like last time, what I think of this doesn't really matter because I'm not familiar enough with prehistoric humans.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

Dang. Love the essay. Will address and sum up your points in a bit. Though I usually have extended efforts in putting effort into the profile on Saturdays or nearing the end of the week. So a response will come in a couple of days.

Makes sense, thanks for acknowledging it.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

These look like good points. I was already aware that real individuals aren't allowed to be indexed, meanwhile the entire point of "The Real World" being on the VS Battles Wiki is just to be used as a general reference when real things appear in fiction, but I figured there was something inappropriate about using real information about criminals as evidence. I know real criminology itself isn't bad, but I went along with not including it just to be safe. Should we check in with an administrator to confirm whether or not adding real criminology to the profile would be against the rules?

Fair opinion, but whether or not the profile will be prepared doesn't look like it's up for debate.

That seems right to me. Like last time, what I think of this doesn't really matter because I'm not familiar enough with prehistoric humans.

Yeah I don't think we'd be able to list criminals as evidence since we'd be naming them specifically and also risking the possibility of NSFW/NSFL details perhaps.
In any case, I guess we can familiarise ourselves with the archaic humans or do other stuff in the meantime.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

These look like good points. I was already aware that real individuals aren't allowed to be indexed, meanwhile the entire point of "The Real World" being on the VS Battles Wiki is just to be used as a general reference when real things appear in fiction, but I figured there was something inappropriate about using real information about criminals as evidence. I know real criminology itself isn't bad, but I went along with not including it just to be safe. Should we check in with an administrator to confirm whether or not adding real criminology to the profile would be against the rules?

Fair opinion, but whether or not the profile will be prepared doesn't look like it's up for debate.

That seems right to me. Like last time, what I think of this doesn't really matter because I'm not familiar enough with prehistoric humans.

Dang. Love the essay. Will address and sum up your points in a bit. Though I usually have extended efforts in putting effort into the profile on Saturdays or nearing the end of the week. So a response will come in a couple of days.

Hope you can address what I sent when you're free H3. (Just sending this as a reminder.)

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

Yeah I don't think we'd be able to list criminals as evidence since we'd be naming them specifically and also risking the possibility of NSFW/NSFL details perhaps.
In any case, I guess we can familiarise ourselves with the archaic humans or do other stuff in the meantime.

Would it help if more than one person had done the same thing? That would even decrease the chance of outliers.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Before we settle the verdict, just want to quickly state a few points myself.

1: If I'm not wrong, the main rules about having real-life people is having SPECIFIC (mostly famous or otherwise notable, which also extends to stuff like targeting other people by either real or online name) real-life individuals as main subjects/topics of a wiki itself or a wiki/forum article/thread (so not as examples of feats or other less major parts of the discussion), so if we're talking about any general human or the human species as a whole (same as we do with other living beings in real life, thus addressing the point about moral standing of living beings with regard to comparing humans to other living beings), that should not pose an issue.

The site's rules and this thread are one of the reasons why I brought up stuff relating to your first and second points. And we gotta put ourselves in the staff's shoes. What about the legal risks, potentially bad example, and the "indexing fictional franchises" purpose-straying aspects of having the profile official?

At heart, this is what the rules are about, but what if staff are going to pull the "average humans are US" card? (figuratively speaking)

2: I find the "brutality and ethics" point as well as the "knowledge of how to kill people" point both a bit weird as well, because ironically enough, Wikipedia has detailed articles on how specific people have died as well as what stuff in the universe is deadly to us and how/why they are deadly (such as toxic chemicals and radiation and various types of injury, at times with graphic potential NSFW/NSFL imagery and/or details), and while I can understand that Fandom and forums do not have the same ruleset as Wikipedia and I agree about not discussing specific individuals and not using graphic imagery or details, there have been many brutal fictional and real events of the sort on various platforms of media.
Again, as a compromise, I would think discussing general means as to how any general real-life living being (so again, not specific named/famous/notable individuals) can be harmed and/or die (as well as how and why such means are life-threatening and otherwise harmful) in addition to how they can be helped and/or brought (back) to life or otherwise have their life sustained (as well as how and why such means are life-saving and otherwise helpful) would be overall acceptable to a degree in the name of information dissemination as long as we adhere to the above about not discussing specific individuals and not using graphic potential NSFW/NSFL imagery and/or details.

Would it help if more than one person had done the same thing? That would even decrease the chance of outliers.

Not naming specific individuals and putting "man/woman does "X" illegal action" should help for dealing with NSFW/NSFL details. But for criminals' specific details to "X" actions, there's a huge infohazard risk we should deal with.

3: To be honest, I'd rather just keep the Composite Human profile and not use an Average Human profile since "average" is hard to define/measure and often subject to context and expectations which would lead us to a LOT of debating due to the inherent near-limitless potential we have (only limited by our resources and characteristics/traits), whereas peak of abilities is easier to define/measure, and due to our format on profiles, is easier to structure and leaves less room for debate.

Technically a lot of this can be solved by gathering large sets of data or preestablished statistics for average people. For example, we have data for the average person's weight. And we can gather lots of data for what types of animals the average person would capable of overpowering.

4: Additionally, regarding prehistoric and modern humans (using perhaps the period of the starting of civilisations (the general part of human history where civilisations began to arise, as we transitioned from more active hunting and gathering to more sedentary agriculture) as the boundary for prehistoric vs modern), we should always keep in mind that the daily lives of those different types of humans are vastly different due to our different lifestyles and demands for sustainment of such lifestyles, which also correlate with the different features/characteristics/traits that were developed during the evolution of these different types of humans (H3, sorry, but I suggest that you look back to the articles I sent you about the archaic humans since they had details about their anatomy).
For example, we should consider that prehistoric humans would have to hunt large prey animals such as bison and compete with other predators such as the big cats and bears with relatively crude and primitive tools such as wooden fire-hardened and/or stone-tipped spears, clubs and perhaps bows and arrows as well as strategies/tactics like endurance hunting, whereas by the time civilisation arose and modern humans started to flourish, said modern humans would have domesticated animals and plants to either aid them or sustain them, and also developed more efficient and effective tactics and tools for defence and offence which could be used for both hunting and combat (as noted by depictions of gymnasiums and fighting techniques and weapons in ancient civilisations).

While yes, every human's lifestyle is different, when I mean "human", I don't mean the genus homo. I mean Homo sapiens. If 90% of people will mistake this distinction that's literally in the profile's notes and classification, then I will point out that the profile is indexing homo sapiens specifically.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

Technically a lot of this can be solved by gathering large sets of data or preestablished statistics for average people. For example, we have data for the average person's weight. And we can gather lots of data for what types of animals the average person would capable of overpowering.

Fair enough, that's true.

While yes, every human's lifestyle is different, when I mean "human", I don't mean the genus homo. I mean Homo sapiens. If 90% of people will mistake this distinction that's literally in the profile's notes and classification, then I will point out that the profile is indexing homo sapiens specifically.

Homo sapiens (disambiguation) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"See Human subspecies for proposed subspecies of Homo sapiens:

• Homo sapiens idaltu, a proposed subspecies (extinct) related to the modern human subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens
• Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, an alternative to Homo neanderthalsis that implies Neanderthal man might be a subspecies more closely related to modern humans
• Homo sapiens rhodesiensis, an alternative nomenclature for Homo rhodesiensis
• Homo sapiens sapiens, subspecies that precisely represents modern humans, the earliest of whom emerged about 200,000 years ago – the only human subspecies still alive on Earth"

Ironically enough there's potentially subspecies for the more modern-like archaic humans (also due to interbreeding within the Homo genus between the archaic/prehistoric human species/subspecies and modern extant human species/subspecies), but in this we might as well just take the trouble to specify Homo sapiens sapiens if the subspecies are considered valid (still a lot of debate around that though).

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Fair enough, that's true.

Homo sapiens (disambiguation) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"See Human subspecies for proposed subspecies of Homo sapiens:

• Homo sapiens idaltu, a proposed subspecies (extinct) related to the modern human subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens
• Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, an alternative to Homo neanderthalsis that implies Neanderthal man might be a subspecies more closely related to modern humans
• Homo sapiens rhodesiensis, an alternative nomenclature for Homo rhodesiensis
• Homo sapiens sapiens, subspecies that precisely represents modern humans, the earliest of whom emerged about 200,000 years ago – the only human subspecies still alive on Earth"

Ironically enough there's potentially subspecies for the more modern-like archaic humans (also due to interbreeding within the Homo genus between the archaic/prehistoric human species/subspecies and modern extant human species/subspecies), but in this we might as well just take the trouble to specify Homo sapiens sapiens if the subspecies are considered valid (still a lot of debate around that though).

The distinctive line between 2 species blurs if they could interbreed casually with each other. And things may be controversial in the scientific community due to an inconclusive consensus via good arguments from both sides, or by emotion/ ethics (mostly nonapplicable in this case).

My best solution would be to have the general scientific consensus/majority's position on homo sapiens and apply the subspecies where the line is most distinct between 2 different species.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

The distinctive line between 2 species blurs if they could interbreed casually with each other. And things may be controversial in the scientific community due to an inconclusive consensus via good arguments from both sides, or by emotion/ ethics (mostly nonapplicable in this case).

My best solution would be to have the general scientific consensus/majority's position on homo sapiens and apply the subspecies where the line is most distinct between 2 different species.

OK, this works then, thanks. (Also, sorry, there's still the other messages to respond to )

Composite Human Vs Tournament

By the way, I would disagree with the 3rd quote on the composite human page from Alvarez with the last bit about the "urge to leave a visual mark that says “I was here”", cause animals do that too for territory, but I digress. To those of you all who contribute to the page: 1: What is the...

vsbattles.com

(in case they're not added already)

Composite Human edits 2.0 (Matchup, defacto CRT, optional additions, etc)

That's a lotta feats. When Aurora gets back (and MaybewantstoEdit), we should look over the feats in the TV tropes to see if they hold up. As for some of them... "It's an unwritten rule that a power/ability has to be overpowered/supernatural about it. Because of this, there shouldn't be...

vsbattles.com

(Apparently Aurora's profile is "deleted user" now, not sure if they have another profile currently)

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Composite human's not my priority until I finish setting standard for the IRL (The Real World) verse. Then I plan to import those standard into "The Real World what-if? mergings" verse through staff at JBW, albeit slowly due to Joke Battles Wiki's ongoing staff shortage.

Top Question
Apparently, I've questioned the distinction between having multiple mundane human arms and security cameras.

• Fundementally, I believe it or not was using the "multiple cameras" to try to buy into the above average argument. But as Flashlight said, they all do the same thing.
• However, applying this standard to powers like multilocation and additional limbs makes this argument pretty weird. Technically, having multiple "eyes" or "sights" at once has the sight in question do the same thing, and yet, characters like Caine from the Amazing Digital Cirus literally have a superpower for having multiple sights at different places at once.
  • Sure, human eyes are far less cartoony, though wouldn't the ability to see many places at once be a superpower?

So where do we draw the line here? It falls back to the argument of whether something's above average or a superpower. Going by example of previous abilities, would having multiple mouths, digitally recording cameras, laptops, clothes, organs, etc than usual count as an ability/superpower? I'm asking this because the lines between a mundane ability and a superpower start to blur or get close to the line between them.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

Composite human's not my priority until I finish setting standard for the IRL (The Real World) verse. Then I plan to import those standard into "The Real World what-if? mergings" verse through staff at JBW, albeit slowly due to Joke Battles Wiki's ongoing staff shortage.

Makes sense considering the newly changed rules possibly affecting the Composite Human's potential stats and equipment.

 

[James_Plays_4_Games]

Top Question
Apparently, I've questioned the distinction between having multiple mundane human arms and security cameras.

• Fundementally, I believe it or not was using the "multiple cameras" to try to buy into the above average argument. But as Flashlight said, they all do the same thing.
• However, applying this standard to powers like multilocation and additional limbs makes this argument pretty weird. Technically, having multiple "eyes" or "sights" at once has the sight in question do the same thing, and yet, characters like Caine from the Amazing Digital Cirus literally have a superpower for having multiple sights at different places at once.
  • Sure, human eyes are far less cartoony, though wouldn't the ability to see many places at once be a superpower?

So where do we draw the line here? It falls back to the argument of whether something's above average or a superpower. Going by example of previous abilities, would having multiple mouths, digitally recording cameras, laptops, clothes, organs, etc than usual count as an ability/superpower? I'm asking this because the lines between a mundane ability and a superpower start to blur or get close to the line between them.

As one of the two people who created Caine's profile, I can tell you that I decided to consider Caine has having clairvoyance because having "hundreds of all-seeing eyes" in the way he does is supernatural. Caine having many separate floating eyes that are magic due to being "all-seeing" is a lot different than my own two eyes being a part of me that have the one standard purpose of being a means for me to see. I didn't regard Caine as having clairvoyance purely because of the quantity of eyes. If a character has hundreds of regular eyes stuck to their body, that would just be realistic enhanced senses, which is an ability real flies are already considered as possessing.

If you were to consider someone's own security system as being "limited clairvoyance via technology," I wouldn't be protesting it. It's "limited" because it only lets someone see in specific spots and it would be a hassle to move the system freely, unlike Caine's all-seeing eyes. If the character uses someone else's security system, like the FNAF security guards, there isn't really a reason to give them this ability, as they are more so interacting with a location that isn't their own and that they are temporarily visiting.

Multilocation is basically a limited and/or incomplete omnipresence, so an average human using technology for viewing other locations doesn't qualify no matter how vast and advanced the technology is, because the nature of using it as a separate thing than the person makes it not coincide with what multilocation is. Additional limbs is also out of the question because security cameras aren't even body parts at all.

As for the others:

• Mouths and organs aren't limbs, so even though having more of them than standard has the same vibe as what qualifies for the additional limbs ability, you'd have to either revise the additional limbs ability to not be exclusive to limbs or propose a new ability if you want this to count as something that has an accepted title. As seen in the "Possible Uses" section of the Additional Limbs page, a character having this ability is meant to convey a potential advantage over characters who lack the ability when it comes to things like martial arts and weapon mastery, which is a potential advantage that something like having two hearts doesn't grant.
• What ability would having more clothes than usual even count as? It's not as though having a lot of something counts as the ability to directly manipulate it, so having more clothing than usual can't be cloth manipulation. The Cloth Manipulation page also mentions that the ability is to be "supernaturally" used. It can't be multilocation nor additional limbs, because clothes aren't part of the average human body, and it can't be clairvoyance because clothes don't let people view things. I'm not sure what you're suggesting about clothes. Sure, someone who owns ten copies of every clothing in the existence, which is a far above average accomplishment, definitely qualifies as having a better than mundane feat, but aside from being evidence of niche experience that would rarely be relevant in combat, I don't see how this feat matters for battleboarding purposes.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

As one of the two people who created Caine's profile, I can tell you that I decided to consider Caine has having clairvoyance because having "hundreds of all-seeing eyes" in the way he does is supernatural. Caine having many separate floating eyes that are magic due to being "all-seeing" is a lot different than my own two eyes being a part of me that have the one standard purpose of being a means for me to see. I didn't regard Caine as having clairvoyance purely because of the quantity of eyes. If a character has hundreds of regular eyes stuck to their body, that would just be realistic enhanced senses, which is an ability real flies are already considered as possessing.

If you were to consider someone's own security system as being "limited clairvoyance via technology," I wouldn't be protesting it. It's "limited" because it only lets someone see in specific spots and it would be a hassle to move the system freely, unlike Caine's all-seeing eyes. If the character uses someone else's security system, like the FNAF security guards, there isn't really a reason to give them this ability, as they are more so interacting with a location that isn't their own and that they are temporarily visiting.

Multilocation is basically a limited and/or incomplete omnipresence, so an average human using technology for viewing other locations doesn't qualify no matter how vast and advanced the technology is, because the nature of using it as a separate thing than the person makes it not coincide with what multilocation is. Additional limbs is also out of the question because security cameras aren't even body parts at all.

As for the others:

• Mouths and organs aren't limbs, so even though having more of them than standard has the same vibe as what qualifies for the additional limbs ability, you'd have to either revise the additional limbs ability to not be exclusive to limbs or propose a new ability if you want this to count as something that has an accepted title. As seen in the "Possible Uses" section of the Additional Limbs page, a character having this ability is meant to convey a potential advantage over characters who lack the ability when it comes to things like martial arts and weapon mastery, which is a potential advantage that something like having two hearts doesn't grant.
• What ability would having more clothes than usual even count as? It's not as though having a lot of something counts as the ability to directly manipulate it, so having more clothing than usual can't be cloth manipulation. The Cloth Manipulation page also mentions that the ability is to be "supernaturally" used. It can't be multilocation nor additional limbs, because clothes aren't part of the average human body, and it can't be clairvoyance because clothes don't let people view things. I'm not sure what you're suggesting about clothes. Sure, someone who owns ten copies of every clothing in the existence, which is a far above average accomplishment, definitely qualifies as having a better than mundane feat, but aside from being evidence of niche experience that would rarely be relevant in combat, I don't see how this feat matters for battleboarding purposes.

It's not just about the specific powers I listed. They're examples of "if we have multiple of "X" thing that's above average, should we consider it an ability even when each individual thing is mundane?".

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Also, what we're suggesting is allowing mundane abilities if "X" character has multiple of "X" thing. And that would make them a superpower by that logic. I guess you're saying that to an extent, it wouldn't be wrong as long as it's not too mundane.

 

[James_Plays_4_Games]

It's not just about the specific powers I listed. They're examples of "if we have multiple of "X" thing that's above average, should we consider it an ability even when each individual thing is mundane?".

Also, what we're suggesting is allowing mundane abilities if "X" character has multiple of "X" thing. And that would make them a superpower by that logic. I guess you're saying that to an extent, it wouldn't be wrong as long as it's not too mundane.

Oh, okay. In that case, I would review them case-by-case. Whether or not something is mundane is a quality, whereas you're asking about quantity. Sometimes quantity being large doesn't give it the quality of being notable. A character having a large quantity of clothes is almost meaningless in terms of quality that is relevant to battleboarding, meanwhile a character having a large quantity of money could make them advantageous in preparation matches depending on how "large" the quantity is, and a character having more than two arms would make them qualify for having additional limbs.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

Oh, okay. In that case, I would review them case-by-case. Whether or not something is mundane is a quality, whereas you're asking about quantity. Sometimes quantity being large doesn't give it the quality of being notable. A character having a large quantity of clothes is almost meaningless in terms of quality that is relevant to battleboarding, meanwhile a character having a large quantity of money could make them advantageous in preparation matches depending on how "large" the quantity is, and a character having more than two arms would make them qualify for having additional limbs.

As one of the two people who created Caine's profile, I can tell you that I decided to consider Caine has having clairvoyance because having "hundreds of all-seeing eyes" in the way he does is supernatural. Caine having many separate floating eyes that are magic due to being "all-seeing" is a lot different than my own two eyes being a part of me that have the one standard purpose of being a means for me to see. I didn't regard Caine as having clairvoyance purely because of the quantity of eyes. If a character has hundreds of regular eyes stuck to their body, that would just be realistic enhanced senses, which is an ability real flies are already considered as possessing.

If you were to consider someone's own security system as being "limited clairvoyance via technology," I wouldn't be protesting it. It's "limited" because it only lets someone see in specific spots and it would be a hassle to move the system freely, unlike Caine's all-seeing eyes. If the character uses someone else's security system, like the FNAF security guards, there isn't really a reason to give them this ability, as they are more so interacting with a location that isn't their own and that they are temporarily visiting.

Multilocation is basically a limited and/or incomplete omnipresence, so an average human using technology for viewing other locations doesn't qualify no matter how vast and advanced the technology is, because the nature of using it as a separate thing than the person makes it not coincide with what multilocation is. Additional limbs is also out of the question because security cameras aren't even body parts at all.

As for the others:

• Mouths and organs aren't limbs, so even though having more of them than standard has the same vibe as what qualifies for the additional limbs ability, you'd have to either revise the additional limbs ability to not be exclusive to limbs or propose a new ability if you want this to count as something that has an accepted title. As seen in the "Possible Uses" section of the Additional Limbs page, a character having this ability is meant to convey a potential advantage over characters who lack the ability when it comes to things like martial arts and weapon mastery, which is a potential advantage that something like having two hearts doesn't grant.
• What ability would having more clothes than usual even count as? It's not as though having a lot of something counts as the ability to directly manipulate it, so having more clothing than usual can't be cloth manipulation. The Cloth Manipulation page also mentions that the ability is to be "supernaturally" used. It can't be multilocation nor additional limbs, because clothes aren't part of the average human body, and it can't be clairvoyance because clothes don't let people view things. I'm not sure what you're suggesting about clothes. Sure, someone who owns ten copies of every clothing in the existence, which is a far above average accomplishment, definitely qualifies as having a better than mundane feat, but aside from being evidence of niche experience that would rarely be relevant in combat, I don't see how this feat matters for battleboarding purposes.

Wait, sorry, I should probably counter this + I'm also gonna add my own opinion regarding this issue.

So where do we draw the line here? It falls back to the argument of whether something's above average or a superpower. Going by example of previous abilities, would having multiple mouths, digitally recording cameras, laptops, clothes, organs, etc than usual count as an ability/superpower?

To be honest, they could technically be considered abilities granted/conferred via equipment for external devices and tools such as the cameras, computers and clothes (heh alliterative consonance), and abilities granted/conferred by biological characteristics for the mouths and organs, so it's sorta possible to include them

Also, I'm pretty sure multiple organs (particularly duplicates of vital organs) would allow the human to compensate should one of the duplicate organs be damaged/removed/destroyed (assuming that we're talking about two or more of the same organ AND that the extra organs are more of a redundancy failsafe/backup than an actual necessity, sorta like for example how we have two kidneys but one kidney can compensate should the other be damaged or removed (redundancy failsafe/backup, also could consider the appendix since it also has beneficial functions but we can live without it, or perhaps the floating and false ribs as well), but when it comes to bones like the pair of the radius and ulna in the arm or the pair of the tibia and fibula in the leg, fracturing either bone compromises/hinders the stability and condition of the pair significantly (necessity, could probably also consider phalanges/fingers and toes or metacarpals and carpals and metatarsals and tarsals/palm of hand and base of hand+wrist bones and sole of foot and heel+ankle bones) if the analogy actually works here)

And as for clothes, that depends on the characteristics/traits of the clothes/garments (could be armour or padding, could serve as insulation and heat retention, etc etc)

However, since we're talking about an "average human", regarding the multiple body parts I'm not sure if we should include mutations that cause genetic/chromosomal and thus physical/physiological and mental/psychological conditions which may have both positive and negative effects on the average human's performance like polymelia, polydactyly, ASD (autism spectrum disorder) with savant syndrome, etc since these are often seen as divergent/deviant from the norm/atypical....? (in this case assuming average would also imply adhering to the norm/expected characteristics/traits of human beings in general which may include not possessing these conditions)

 

[James_Plays_4_Games]

By the way, when I addressed what I did about a person having a large collection of clothing, I hadn't considered them being armor or padding. I really thought it was only the simple type:

 

[H3110l12345I20]

However, since we're talking about an "average human", regarding the multiple body parts I'm not sure if we should include mutations that cause genetic/chromosomal and thus physical/physiological and mental/psychological conditions which may have both positive and negative effects on the average human's performance like polymelia, polydactyly, ASD (autism spectrum disorder) with savant syndrome, etc since these are often seen as divergent/deviant from the norm/atypical....? (in this case assuming average would also imply adhering to the norm/expected characteristics/traits of human beings in general which may include not possessing these conditions)

The profile adheres to the norm, so no disorders by the word [disorder]'s definition.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

The profile adheres to the norm, so no disorders by the word [disorder]'s definition.

Understood then.

By the way, when I addressed what I did about a person having a large collection of clothing, I hadn't considered them being armor or padding. I really thought it was only the simple type:

As for this, even with those, they could provide mild to moderate protection be it against the environment or opponents.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Started the migration of feats over to the new feat section and making the statistics sections easier to read. In particular, the AP section.

 

[NightlessDarling]

Human profile should've exist btw

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Human profile should've exist btw

I was also going to go over another concern about it in a couple of days.

Namely the fact that the rules make the argument that it's inappropriate for underaged people to debate killing IRL people. Though ironically enough, there were arguments in the real world human profilea thread against this that Bambu didn't address.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Top Question
Namely the fact that the rules make the argument that it's inappropriate for underaged people to debate killing IRL people. Should this be a good argument against the profile existing?

Though ironically enough, there were arguments in the real world human profiles thread against this that Bambu didn't address. And he thought that there were no counterarguments against him.

 

[James_Plays_4_Games]

Top Question
Namely the fact that the rules make the argument that it's inappropriate for underaged people to debate killing IRL people. Should this be a good argument against the profile existing?

Though ironically enough, there were arguments in the real world human profiles thread against this that Bambu didn't address. And he thought that there were no counterarguments against him.

An underaged person can also enter "full stop punctuation" into YouTube's search engine and discover some pretty insane stuff without even signing in, so I don't how the standards for this stuff work. In the way I see it, they'd be debating about fictional representations of real people no different than if they were to debate about their own characters who have average human stats and a specific personality. By the way, the link to the other thread doesn't work for me.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

An underaged person can also enter "full stop punctuation" into YouTube's search engine and discover some pretty insane stuff without even signing in, so I don't how the standards for this stuff work. In the way I see it, they'd be debating about fictional representations of real people no different than if they were to debate about their own characters who have average human stats and a specific personality. By the way, the link to the other thread doesn't work for me.

Real World Human Profiles

i've already said this on another thread so i'll just paste it here "oh yeah, also, regarding pages for real people, i think they should be allowed within reason (e.g. mike tyson profile good, hitler profile bad), as long as the profiles are matchbanned and exist primarily for reference...

vsbattles.com

We'd also have to put ourselves in the staff's shoes. How would it look on the PR and fandom if they let underaged people debate IRL people? We not only love some of them but have emotional connect to at least some of them (like my mom, your brother, etc)

The staff can implement a topic ban. They done the same thing with verses like Naruto to prevent the scaling of "X characters" to another tier. I don't see why they can't do the same thing with a smaller verse like the real world.

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

To be fair, it wouldn't be obvious.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

To be fair, it wouldn't be obvious.

KLOL506 was staff when the honey badger vs human thread came out. There's bound to be staff presence if there are matches

 

[H3110l12345I20]

MEMES!

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

MEMES!

wrong thread but yee

 

[H3110l12345I20]

wrong thread but yee

Actually, the original video behind the man punching the window is relevant in terms of durability.

I'll link the original video, but how good of a feat is it to withstand punching into a window like that (biomechanics, hardnes of the window, etc)

Edit: video is here

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Secondary top question
How good of a feat is it to withstand punching into a window like that (biomechanics, hardnes of the window, etc)

Orìginal video is here

Replying on this to get everyone's attention

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

Actually, the original video behind the man punching the window is relevant in terms of durability.

I'll link the original video, but how good of a feat is it to withstand punching into a window like that (biomechanics, hardnes of the window, etc)

Edit: video is here

Did not expect that :|
Also, depends on the type of glass (normal, tempered, bulletproof/bullet-resistant, etc) + the stability of the window frame

Death of Garry Hoy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

dude tried to prove that a certain window was unbreakable, and when he ran into it/threw himself against it, both he and the (intact) window fell out of the window frame (he was 73 kg)

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Also, depends on the type of glass (normal, tempered, bulletproof/bullet-resistant, etc) + the stability of the window frame

We pretty much saw the window withstand the punches, which type of window could do that?

 

[James_Plays_4_Games]

Real World Human Profiles

i've already said this on another thread so i'll just paste it here "oh yeah, also, regarding pages for real people, i think they should be allowed within reason (e.g. mike tyson profile good, hitler profile bad), as long as the profiles are matchbanned and exist primarily for reference...

vsbattles.com

That link works. Thanks.

We'd also have to put ourselves in the staff's shoes. How would it look on the PR and fandom if they let underaged people debate IRL people? We not only love some of them but have emotional connect to at least some of them (like my mom, your brother, etc)

I don't let an emotional favor for something hinder me from discussing about that thing in an arbitrary fictional battle scenario, so I can't relate to that. I'm good at putting myself in other people shoe's though. Some people take conclusions in versus debate personally, and the VS Battles Wiki staff would want to prevent meltdowns and drama, so I understand. I'm not sure how likely this is to happen though. This character is meant to be an average human with no particular identity, and the real people are only used as evidence for determining the capabilities of this average human with no particular identity.

The staff can implement a topic ban. They done the same thing with verses like Naruto to prevent the scaling of "X characters" to another tier. I don't see why they can't do the same thing with a smaller verse like the real world.

I suppose so. A more thematically appropriate comparison example: The VS Battles Wiki indexes Barney the Dinosaur but disallows anyone from making versus threads of him.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

I don't let an emotional favor for something hinder me from discussing about that thing in an arbitrary fictional battle scenario, so I can't relate to that. I'm good at putting myself in other people shoe's though. Some people take conclusions in versus debate personally, and the VS Battles Wiki staff would want to prevent meltdowns and drama, so I understand. I'm not sure how likely this is to happen though. This character is meant to be an average human with no particular identity, and the real people are only used as evidence for determining the capabilities of this average human with no particular identity.

Our emotions are one of the reasons why dramas happen.

I personally think this is where lines could blur. One hand, this is fictional, on the other hand, WE ARE the average human; still living, breathing creatures. And we'd still have to put what the human would or wouldn't be killed by.

 

[James_Plays_4_Games]

Our emotions are one of the reasons why dramas happen.

I personally think this is where lines could blur. One hand, this is fictional, on the other hand, WE ARE the average human; still living, breathing creatures. And we'd still have to put what the human would or wouldn't be killed by.

With that being told, doesn't the Tiering System inherently do this anyway? Street level is considered as sufficient to one-shot Human level, and the latter tier is the one I have. That's the tier billions of people have. It doesn't take much to reach that conclusion. If someone is too emotional and they think about it, they could discover the same message that humans are fragile compared to a lot of power written in fiction. Knowing the Internet, that certain someone who is too emotional could easily be someone who is also a loud complainer about perceived wrongdoings.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

With that being told, doesn't the Tiering System inherently do this anyway? Street level is considered as sufficient to one-shot Human level, and the latter tier is the one I have. That's the tier billions of people have. It doesn't take much to reach that conclusion. If someone is too emotional and they think about it, they could discover the same message that humans are fragile compared to a lot of power written in fiction. Knowing the Internet, that certain someone who is too emotional could easily be someone who is also a loud complainer about perceived wrongdoings.

My argment pretty much came from staff.

I think their main reasons for being emotional on and against having real world people is ethics to indexing what it would take to kill people, having them as profiles on site would derail from the main purpose of this site indexing fiction, and MOST IMPORTANTLY to prevent legal action from being taken to the wiki.

You should've read the previous thread by now. Albeit Mr Bambu's emotions to Smoke and real world people may cloud his judgement

 

[James_Plays_4_Games]

My argment pretty much came from staff.

I think their main reasons for being emotional on and against having real world people is ethics to indexing what it would take to kill people, having them as profiles on site would derail from the main purpose of this site indexing fiction, and MOST IMPORTANTLY to prevent legal action from being taken to the wiki.

You should've read the previous thread by now. Albeit Mr Bambu's emotions to Smoke and real world people may cloud his judgement

Alright. "The Real World" verse is just for reference points anyway, so if it's too risky to make the average human an official profile, it won't be much of a bummer to me when there are other options.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Alright. "The Real World" verse is just for reference points anyway, so if it's too risky to make the average human an official profile, it won't be much of a bummer to me when there are other options.

My old friend DarlingAurora engaged in a heavy debate, and this is where we stalemates after it ended vvv

Deleted Username and I have discussed this, and the debate.

Overall. The debate could've continued, but 90% of it has been debated. And I'm surprised that Aurora could get very far into a moral and practical debate on this.

Long story short (read the bolded parts for a short rundown). Put yourself in the position in staff. You don't want the wiki to get sued and taken down by real people, not to mention that this is a fictional indexing wiki that allows IRL animal profiles as a reference point.

At the end of the debate. These points are the likely points staff will fall upon.

• We already have a thread onto why we shouldn't have IRL human profiles, and even though you could argue the judgment of Mr. Bambu was somewhat skewed due to BigSmoke's behavior on-site. We still have other reasons why such a profile is disallowed.
• While we do have stuff on-site that arguably could be used to kill people that are still breathing, they're more appropriate to have on-site since they're not only not people that could sue us. Even then, it's inappropriate for people on site (especially underaged users) to debate the killing of IRL people. And we're not debating the killing of IRL people.
  • I personally find the last point weird. You could literally do 10-B street fight matches no problem on-site(there's some against Ned Leeds and Sayori), not to mention they're like real people.
    • If the brutality and ethics of debating IRL people is a problem (even with not-so or low controversial people), then wouldn't the excuse that they're fictional characters downplay the brutality of these said matches? They're just as brutal and terrifying as IRL street fights.
• If the minor details on IRL avg people are that special, then why not put it in a reference blog? They unlike IRL animals are still real people and the profile is (close to) real people
  • And Aurora countered the point here by suggesting we do the same to all IRL animal profiles.
  • But the staff will still hold the point that this profile is still close to IRL people.
  • This technically means that staff morally uphold people more than animals. Morality is subjective, though Aurora thinks that doesn't mean all animals have equal life as us.
• We (us users) are the human species.
  • A person can read what it would take to kill a person by knowing what stuff a regular human can't withstand, their weaknesses and limitations, etc. That same person could use the information to kill someone and the survivors of that person could sue the wiki.
    • The profile has indirect information on how 2 kill a person. Though Aurora says plenty of wikis have stuff that would kill a human and they're fine (Coco has poison, our wiki has plenty of IRL weapons, etc)

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

Our emotions are one of the reasons why dramas happen.

Unfortunately, case in point: literally the RVR thread's last 2 pages.

We pretty much saw the window withstand the punches, which type of window could do that?

And for this... it's probably tempered glass or just very thick safety glass of some other sort? I'll send the articles for them.

Safety glass - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Tempered glass - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Chemically strengthened glass - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Laminated glass - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bulletproof glass - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org