Pokemon God Revision- Yes its Arceus (And minor stuff for Unown)

[Executor_N0]

1) I didn't translate anything from any fansite, everything I translated and made use of is from official sources. If this thread made use of anything like that, it isn't something I translated.

2) In regards to what Arceus/The Heart encompasses, this includes all of existence, the entire universe. It's explained in detail in Pokémon Platinum in the moment of creation when everything was one how everything from all of the time, space, and mind were just the same mind/heart/spirit, that includes humans and pokémon (And this even references the removed line from localization about Pokémon and Humans marrying each other because it was supposed to mean that they were all the same thing in a very literal sense, they were the same heart).

 

[Sniper670]

Heart = The entire multiverse is part of this thing

Arceus = The same Heart who is all of existence, manifests a being to rule and have absolute power over all facets of creations. An Omnipotent being. And has all 18, each signifying the powers that is used in the series. Effectively giving it coverage of all powers in the series.

Why is it so hard to understand Arceus can use the powers of others? Especially when the lore says so.

It is literally the same being who is all things that has manifested a form to interact with the multiverse. He's basically channeling himself through this

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

1) I didn't translate anything from any fansite, everything I translated and made use of is from official sources. If this thread made use of anything like that, it isn't something I translated.

2) In regards to what Arceus/The Heart encompasses, this includes all of existence, the entire universe. It's explained in detail in Pokémon Platinum in the moment of creation when everything was one how everything from all of the time, space, and mind were just the same mind/heart/spirit, that includes humans and pokémon (And this even references the removed line from localization about Pokémon and Humans marrying each other because it was supposed to mean that they were all the same thing in a very literal sense, they were the same heart).

giving Arceus’s all powers because he encompasses the verse is a different argument than trying to give him one based on the plates and one singular line.

 

[StrymULTRA]

giving Arceus’s all powers because he encompasses the verse is a different argument than trying to give him one based on the plates and one singular line.

I mean... I never argued that the Avatar has the P&A of the True Creation Trio eh. That was only for True Arceus.

 

[Antvasima]

1) I didn't translate anything from any fansite, everything I translated and made use of is from official sources. If this thread made use of anything like that, it isn't something I translated.

2) In regards to what Arceus/The Heart encompasses, this includes all of existence, the entire universe. It's explained in detail in Pokémon Platinum in the moment of creation when everything was one how everything from all of the time, space, and mind were just the same mind/heart/spirit, that includes humans and pokémon (And this even references the removed line from localization about Pokémon and Humans marrying each other because it was supposed to mean that they were all the same thing in a very literal sense, they were the same heart).

@Promestein @Moritzva @Hasty12345

What do you think about this?

Also, I apologise if I messed up by allowing this revision.

 

[Sniper670]

Also, I apologise if I messed up by allowing this revision.

You didn't mess up anything.

What Executor_N0 said a few hours ago is literally the same thing he said yesterday, albeit with much less detail.

Which has been reviewed and approved by 5 staff already.

I don't see the point in the thread being open

 

[Sniper670]

Bring Up My Post

 

[Antvasima]

You didn't mess up anything.

What Executor_N0 said a few hours ago is literally the same thing he said yesterday, albeit with much less detail.

Which has been reviewed and approved by 5 staff already.

I don't see the point in the thread being open

I can't close a revision thread when both Promestein and Moritzva oppose that it was applied in the first place.

 

[Sniper670]

Alright then. I guess it's better to deal with it once and for all right here

 

[Sniper670]

BUMP

 

[Antvasima]

You didn't mess up anything.

What Executor_N0 said a few hours ago is literally the same thing he said yesterday, albeit with much less detail.

Which has been reviewed and approved by 5 staff already.

I don't see the point in the thread being open

I can't close a revision thread when both Promestein and Moritzva oppose that it was applied in the first place.

@Promestein @Moritzva @GyroNutz @Elizhaa @Executor_N0 @Everything12

What do you think that we should do here? It would be good if you can reach some kind of agreement between yourselves.

 

[Moritzva]

Antvasima, I am opposed to the idea of people rehashing old threads and hoping for the vote to turn their way. That encourages people to simply retry threads until the opposition doesn't show up and they get lucky enough for the thread to pass.

I asked Sniper to explain to me why this thread was different; he passive-aggressively dismissed me instead. If it is different, he has not proven so. His argument lies in an overwhelming number of translations that look eeriely similar to the ones he has posted in the past (which have not succeeded) and, even more than before, are dubious in light of their source.

I think this change should be reversed and the thread should be closed. I gave Sniper ample opportunity to prove why this thread was proposing new, unique evidence, and Sniper simply showed me more of the same with an intense, rude attitude unwilling to cooperate with basic requests.

 

[Moritzva]

And this has been accepted after 5 staff reviewed it because the last one was arbitrary

Dude. Are you ready to explain why Arceus shouldn't get the powers he's giving to others?

If you can't, then stop using the last thread as an excuse.

If anyone thinks that this thread is not a rehash of the previous one, here's him admitting that this thread is a rehash of the previous one.

 

[Sniper670]

1. It will not be reversed

2. What passive aggressive behavior

3. I explained the purpose of this thread

4. This thread is not the same as the last. This is to prove that all Pokemon powers are intertwined with the plates and thus he should not be restricted to just moves

5. I'll ask you once again, why is the proof not enough

 

[Sniper670]

If anyone thinks that this thread is not a rehash of the previous one, here's him admitting that this thread is a rehash of the previous one.

The first sentence of my thread mentioned that i'm going to prove why the arbitrary limitation to moves from last thread doesn't work. Which i did, got reviewed by knowledgeable staff and accepted

 

[Moritzva]

If the proof isn't different from the last thread (which you have not proven any noticable differences and have neglected to respond to repeated inquiries), then I don't need to repeat the reasons why the evidence is flawed.

You're right. This thread isn't the same as the last, but your arguments and points are. The last thread covered multiple topics, including those same arguments and points.

You can't rehash threads like this. Either you decisively explain how the evidence you brought is different from the previous one, as well as addressing if said evidence is valid at all, or this will be closed and reverted.

 

[Sniper670]

If the proof isn't different from the last thread (which you have not proven any noticable differences and have neglected to respond to repeated inquiries), then I don't need to repeat the reasons why the evidence is flawed.

That proof was enough to get Arceus access to all moves. This thread is to prove it's not limited to that

You're right. This thread isn't the same as the last, but your arguments and points are. The last thread covered multiple topics, including those same arguments and points.

They're not the same tho.

You can't rehash threads like this. Either you decisively explain how the evidence you brought is different from the previous one, as well as addressing if said evidence is valid at all, or this will be closed and reverted.

You keep saying rehash. What rehash

My thread is this, to show that moves/powers/abilities are equal

And I did. And has been accepted by 5 staff

What is the problem now

 

[Sniper670]

Keep screaming "Its a rehash"

 

[Moritzva]

You have literally responded to a comment calling it a rehash with the following:

And this has been accepted after 5 staff reviewed it because the last one was arbitrary

Dude. Are you ready to explain why Arceus shouldn't get the powers he's giving to others?

If you can't, then stop using the last thread as an excuse.

Not to mention, the last thread passed for reasons completely different from your own. Your reasons were never accepted for either topic.

You can't lose a thread, and make a new one hoping different people will respond in a favorable way.

I'm not continuing this conversation because you are not listening nor arguing in good faith. Antvasima, I have made my point and highly advise the closure and reversal of this thread.

I have asked a very simple question multiple times; how is the evidence different? Sniper has never given an answer, and has insinuated and responded to comments in a way confirming that this load of evidence is the same as his previously rejected argument. This is nothing more than a rehash in an attempt to tire out opposing arguments and pass a thread not through logic and reason, but by bad faith attrition and tiring any (and several of the) potential opponents out.

 

[Sniper670]

You have literally responded to a comment calling it a rehash with the following:

Not to mention, the last thread passed for reasons completely different from your own. Your reasons were never accepted for either topic.

You can't lose a thread, and make a new one hoping different people will respond in a favorable way.
sure
I'm not continuing this conversation because you are not listening nor arguing in good faith. Antvasima, I have made my point and highly advise the closure and reversal of this thread.

You can take a rest now. Your stance is not changing the decision made by 5 staff

 

[Zencha9]

why don't you give chance to the mods who commented on this thread and the last one
and tell them to explain their reasoning to why they accepted the the current thread

 

[Moritzva]

You can take a rest now. Your stance is not changing the decision made by 5 staff

Yeah, maybe it won't, maybe it will. We'll see.

 

[Zencha9]

also sniper please stop antagonizing mori it won't help your case

 

[Sniper670]

Yeah, maybe it won't, maybe it will. We'll see.

 

[Sniper670]

also sniper please stop antagonizing mori it won't help your case

Sorry

 

[Antvasima]

Moritzva made a point that I agree with regarding that it isn't appropriate at all to just repeat the same topic and arguments over and over until a desired result is reached.

Which staff members accepted this thread to be applied previously? I will have to send a notification message to them and ask what they think.

Are they GyroNutz, Elizhaa, Executor_N0, Everything12, and myself?

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Moritzva made a point that I agree with regarding that it isn't appropriate at all to just repeat the same topic and arguments over and over until a desired result is reached.

Which staff members accepted this thread to be applied previously? I will have to send a notification message to them and ask what they think.

Are they GyroNutz, Elizhaa, Executor_N0, Everything12, and myself?

Forgot @DarkDragonMedeus

Edit: Everything12 was neutral

 

[Sniper670]

And @FinePoint

 

[Antvasima]

Moritzva made a point that I agree with regarding that it isn't appropriate at all to just repeat the same topic and arguments over and over until a desired result is reached.

Which staff members accepted this thread to be applied previously? I will have to send a notification message to them and ask what they think.

Are they GyroNutz, Elizhaa, Executor_N0, Everything12, and myself?

Forgot @DarkDragonMedeus

Edit: Everything12 was neutral

And @FinePoint

Okay.

@GyroNutz @Elizhaa @Executor_N0 @Everything12 @DarkDragonMedeus @FinePoint

Promestein and Moritzva disagree with this revision and the basic premise of repeating the same revisions over and over until they eventually get accepted, even if they were rejected previously.

What do you think should be done here?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I don't know about Sniper's posts about how reliable the translations, though I do agree with Mori that the antagonists comments are inappropriate. Executor on the other hand mentioned he didn't even use fansite and had just used official Japanese raws and translated them. So I still agree with the parts he brought up.

 

[Everything12]

I wasn't completely neutral, their are some parts I agreed to.

Just put me as Neutral for all this.


Personally, I believe this wasn't avatar Arceus, but the form the Original Spirit Arceus takes to appear to others. So Neutral on this.


Pretty sure Type Immunity isn't what the Wiki considers Immunity and is just a form of Resistance. So Resistance Negation.

Yes, I know some Pokémon profiles have Immunity for Abilities and Type stuff, but the Pokémon profiles on general have poor quality on average so that doesn't mean much.

Immunity is a big NLF and requires something on the level of lacking a soul which obviously means Soul Manipulation can not possibly function on you.


Probably get better evidence for Existence Erasure from upscaling from the Creation Trio remaking the world of something. Personally fine with scaling Arceus to the Creation Trio regardless of the plate stuff because how much more connected Arceus is to them then it is everything else.


Also bestowed it's power to that guy from the Hoopa movie and giving the Lake Trio their ability to calm Palkia and Dialga (Should give Arceus Mind Manipulation and all that for it as well.)


That's Acausality.

Everything else seems fine by me.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

I wasn't completely neutral, their are some parts I agreed to.

The point in contention right now is Arceus getting all the powers. The other stuff was already accepted and applied.

 

[Moritzva]

The other problem with these kinds of threads is that we'll have to get everyone from the past thread to look at this one at well, which is an annoyance and a waste of time for everyone involved. There were a fair few staff members that disagreed previously, too.

Frankly, I don't think we should be going that far. Asking people for evaluation on these arguments when a lot of the main opponents to it were not present (again, another issue with repeatedly making new threads until a desired result is reach) is bound to have inaccurate results. Furthermore, expecting everyone from the past thread to do the debate again is a difficult ask for a lot of the older people on this forum who have lives and really can't be bothered to repeat themselves for no reason.

CRTs like this should very definitively and clearly state why their arguments and evidence is different from previous threads. I asked Sniper for this, and he failed to provide. Take that as you will.

 

[Sniper670]

I did. It's your problem if you dismiss it

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

The other problem with these kinds of threads is that we'll have to get everyone from the past thread to look at this one at well, which is an annoyance and a waste of time for everyone involved. There were a fair few staff members that disagreed previously, too.

Tbf, I mentioned all of the staff involved in the original thread and Ant called them.

 

[Antvasima]

The other problem with these kinds of threads is that we'll have to get everyone from the past thread to look at this one at well, which is an annoyance and a waste of time for everyone involved. There were a fair few staff members that disagreed previously, too.

Frankly, I don't think we should be going that far. Asking people for evaluation on these arguments when a lot of the main opponents to it were not present (again, another issue with repeatedly making new threads until a desired result is reach) is bound to have inaccurate results. Furthermore, expecting everyone from the past thread to do the debate again is a difficult ask for a lot of the older people on this forum who have lives and really can't be bothered to repeat themselves for no reason.

CRTs like this should very definitively and clearly state why their arguments and evidence is different from previous threads. I asked Sniper for this, and he failed to provide. Take that as you will.

Well, I personally definitely strongly agree with the sentiment that already rejected topics should not be repeated over and over.

Which staff members participated in the previous thread?

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

@DontTalkDT
@Moritzva
@Maverick_Zero_X
@Dereck03
@SamanPatou (though he said he didn't want spoilers from Legends Arceus before, not sure if he has played it yet to be able to comment)
@CloverDragon03 (was called to the thread but didn't comment)
@Everything12 (has already expressed to be neutral)
@LordGriffin1000 (though he didn't comment on the thread itself and was moderating it mainly)

@Antvasima

 

[GyroNutz]

Promestein and Moritzva disagree with this revision and the basic premise of repeating the same revisions over and over until they eventually get accepted, even if they were rejected previously.

I'm personally fine with the contents of the CRT. I understand that CRTs on the same topics being churned through can be frustrating, if not dishonest (not making any accusations here, this is all general) but that shouldn't change the contents of the CRT being fundamentally right/wrong, and I'd rather argue what's right or wrong than whether a CRT is "new" enough to need its own thread. These repeated topics do need higher burdens of proof though, which is why I called in more staff.

 

[Antvasima]

The other problem with these kinds of threads is that we'll have to get everyone from the past thread to look at this one at well, which is an annoyance and a waste of time for everyone involved. There were a fair few staff members that disagreed previously, too.

Frankly, I don't think we should be going that far. Asking people for evaluation on these arguments when a lot of the main opponents to it were not present (again, another issue with repeatedly making new threads until a desired result is reach) is bound to have inaccurate results. Furthermore, expecting everyone from the past thread to do the debate again is a difficult ask for a lot of the older people on this forum who have lives and really can't be bothered to repeat themselves for no reason.

CRTs like this should very definitively and clearly state why their arguments and evidence is different from previous threads. I asked Sniper for this, and he failed to provide. Take that as you will.

Well, I personally definitely strongly agree with the sentiment that already rejected topics should not be repeated over and over.

Which staff members participated in the previous thread?

@DontTalkDT
@Moritzva
@Maverick_Zero_X
@Dereck03
@SamanPatou (though he said he didn't want spoilers from Legends Arceus before, not sure if he has played it yet to be able to comment)
@CloverDragon03 (was called to the thread but didn't comment)
@Everything12 (has already expressed to be neutral)
@LordGriffin1000 (though he didn't comment on the thread itself and was moderating it mainly)

@DontTalkDT @Maverick_Zero_X @Dereck03 @SamanPatou (if you do not risk spoilers anymore) @LordGriffin1000

Would you be willing to help out here again please?

 

[Moritzva]

I'm personally fine with the contents of the CRT. I understand that CRTs on the same topics being churned through can be frustrating, if not dishonest (not making any accusations here, this is all general) but that shouldn't change the contents of the CRT being fundamentally right/wrong, and I'd rather argue what's right or wrong than whether a CRT is "new" enough to need its own thread. These repeated topics do need higher burdens of proof though, which is why I called in more staff.

Yeah, I couldn't disagree more.

If something is determined to be wrong, rerolling the thread is dishonest and disingenuous. If you want to argue the same topic and exact debates several times in a row, you are free to do so. Forcing others to do so is the problem, because I don't particularly like a site culture where I have to win a debate two to three times in a row before actually winning the debate. I understand where you are coming from, but it only serves to benefit bad faith roundabout stonewalls.

As said, a new CRT needs to explicitly and clearly state how it is different in evidence or topic from previous CRTs on the same matter. Sniper has not done so (as I have asked multiple times, with Sniper blatantly refusing to respond in any capacity besides snide remarks).

Let it also be known that Sniper has a track record for rude remarks and a general combative nature. Debating with someone who will refuse to provide evidence for over 12 posts is, to say the least, slightly annoying, especially when they fill in the gap with demeaning comments the entire while.

I would like to make it very clear that Sniper is incredibly hostile and uncooperative to debate with, which only exacerbates the problem of allowing him to both be combative and repeat issues until he gets what he wants.