Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Can she give a reason as to why the evidence being provided is not enough for what i'm proposing. She hasn't done so.I personally think that Moritzva makes sense above.
This was covered in the previous thread. If you believe that your evidence is new and compelling in ways not covered on the previous thread, you just have to clearly and decisively say how and why it is different. I have been asking you to do this for days.Can she give a reason as to why the evidence being provided is not enough for what i'm proposing. She hasn't done so.
Like i said before, limiting him to moves is arbitrary and this thread provided proof as to why that is the case
It was not. Simple as that. What is the logic behind limiting him to moves. NONEThis was covered in the previous thread. If you believe that your evidence is new and compelling in ways not covered on the previous thread, you just have to clearly and decisively say how and why it is different. I have been asking you to do this for days.
Okay, I'm actually going to get frustrated if I have to continue debating with this any longer.Ahh. What exactly am i doing wrong here.
Like i said, your cries are not going to overrule what has been decided here. Take your leave
I have., I provided a lot of evidence to prove that Moves = Powers and one should not be seperated from the otherAre you simply not reading what's being said? The answer is in the old thread. The burden of proof is on you, and you are the one that has to prove why this evidence is new and different from what you've previously said. You have been asked this several times, and you even recognize the fact that you have been asked this several times.
Ignored. Since you've set your mind on accusing me of rudeness the moment you step foot here.And you've been warned over a dozen times to cool your attitude, at this point, someone ought to take this to RVT.
Which thread(s) are they claiming this is a repeat of?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?
I'm backIt's late and I have thanksgiving tomorrow, so I can't grab the thread right now (though iam definitely would know). More specifically, this thread is a repeat of a point Sniper made in said thread.
That being said, Sniper is also banned at the moment, so this may be a bit awkward.
No problem.Yes. He helped me reset my password. Thanks for helping out as well
@GyroNutz ,@Elizhaa ,@FinePoint ,@Executor_N0 ,@DarkDragonMedeus are fine with Arceus getting all verse powers.Which staff members have agreed with what here?
Well, What she said didn't change their position.Which staff members have agreed with Moritzva in this thread,
None. The 2 staff who disagreed with the thread did so for their own reasons. That was DT and Agnaa.and which ones agreed with her in our previous revision thread about this subject?
As I've said, it's not "everything", it's "every type". Human-created technology, things in nature, abilities, items, anything that isn't covered by a move isn't associated with "every type".
The power of all things means not the abilities of every Pokémon. It talks about it containing the energy of all types. If it meant all abilities then, grammatically, it would need to say "the powers of all things" as we are talking about many abilities. Also, as you yourself discovered, most translation talk about supreme power or energy, so that is probably what is intended.
So yeah. Power = strength / energy, not abilities. Nothing indicates he has all abilities.
“A slate that holds the power of all things/all creation. When used on a Pokemon, it gains every Type's powers.”