• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Regarding Discussions on Religious Figures

Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually, let me put it this way, as I do agree with Assalt to an extent. Here's the deal. If something like Saint Seiya or Marvel/DC vs. Dragonball can't be made, then religious discussion shouldn't either under the catgeory of "controversial topic". After all our discussion rules clearly state to avoid controversial topics. Controversial =/= offesnive. I think that's what we all missed here.
 
I agree that my "offensive" argument is not the best reason (although I stand by it) and that it being controversial (which I mentioned) and more than likely to end up in a mess is a better reason.
 
Yeah people getting offended themselves was not the real argument, heck people get offended over normal matches here daily yet they are not banned, but offense between a favourite character losing compared to what someone basically bases their life on breeds completely different levels of responses.

I think this wiki and its admins do a good job of not banning stuff simply for PC reasons so I never have problems there.
 
I also need to point out that this site is for debating "Fiction". Religion is something that's arguably real and supposedly deity in question and perhaps actually is someone who "solos all of fiction and reality." Which would be something that would qualify for True Omnipotence, but that's also controversial. The difference between "Goku Vs Superman" and "Religious deity tiering" is that the former is arguing clearly fictional characters whereas the latter is people who are generally believed to be real people but more than enough people for them to just not be considered fiction. Meaning the latter is way more controversial in nature.
 
This isn't really about censorship so much as it's about avoiding controversial troll-bait that'll lead to endless keyboard smashing inanity, and it seems like most staff and people agree here that it should be banned regardless of their reasoning.

I think that's good enough for the decision to be made to to put in a ban of threads about religious figures in the discussion rules and close this thread.
 
@Kaltias, yes, but we only have generic animals, weapons, and composite human from that verse; we don't even allow real historical figures like Attila the Hun.
 
Not to toot my own horn but I kinda knocked this out of the park with that second swing. It falls under "controversial topics" and we have had rule against making threads about controversial topics for years so there is really no need to mess about in further detail of religion itself since everyone should be in firm agreement that it is indeed controversial by its very nature.
 
Religion is a pot that's waiting to boil over.

It's not something that I believe that we could trust people to conduct themselves apporiately. As pointed out, people get outraged over arguments over fictional characters. How do you think they will react when arguing about something that believe in and base their lives around?

That is a firestorm I don't ever want to see, let alone endure. It's like politics, don't bring it up around here.
 
I find myself agreeing with Matt here. If it's to be banned it should be due to what comes out of the threads themselves, not that the general concept has the potential to offend.

That being said, people should definitely be careful with what they're saying to who. I know enough to know that I shouldn't share my personal thoughts on religion as a concept because of the nature of them being basically guaranteed to offend someone, and I don't really gain anything out of having that conversation with someone who doesn't want to.

I don't think anything should he done just because some verses may have portrayals of religious figures that religious people may not like, though.
 
It might be better to place the regulation in the Site Rules page instead, as we already have rules for religious topics there.

What do the rest of you think?
 
@Yobo

The thread was moved to the general discussion forum.
 
So, if I am understanding right...

You don't want a profile on a God (that you worship, or this goes for anyone else, really) allowed because it's highly offensive that someone might inaccurately tier them to what you believe is a downplay because you believe your said God is much more powerful?

Just switch out God with any other character here and this sounds even more ridiculous.
 
Pepper14832 said:
So, if I am understanding right...

You don't want a profile on a God (that you worship, or this goes for anyone else, really) allowed because it's highly offensive that someone might inaccurately tier them to what you believe is a downplay because you believe your said God is much more powerful?

Just switch out God with any other character here and this sounds even more ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Considering people will kill and die for fictional character pairings, is it really that ridiculous?
 
You clearly haven't read a single piece of this discussion. Sorry to break it to you, but there's more to this then that.
 
Pepper14832 said:
So, if I am understanding right...
You don't want a profile on a God (that you worship, or this goes for anyone else, really) allowed because it's highly offensive that someone might inaccurately tier them to what you believe is a downplay because you believe your said God is much more powerful?

Just switch out God with any other character here and this sounds even more ridiculous.
Click to expand...
And this is exactly why threads that inolve religion should not be a thing, this very comment just straight up embodies my reason why it should be a discussion rule.
 
The thread linked in this thread as an example doesn't even come close to that.

Everyone was estimating that Gods' tier was roughly Low 2-C. Nobody came close to talking about slaughtering each other because "No! He's clearly Tier 0! Stop downplaying MY God because that offends me!" No one even got into a huge argument!

To me, that thread didn't get out of hand. If you think that the rating is inaccurate. Why don't you bring it up instead of closing it instantly?
 
@Pepper

I ask again, have you read the thread? That's no longer even the reason behind the rule. It's controversy, not offensiveness.
 
The point is not abot inaccurate scaling or whatever, the point is about people who would be annoyed about scaling them in the very fist place, the thread was not around for long you dont know who would come out at some point to turn it into a shitshow. The reason it is getting banned is to prevent stuff like that from happening in the first place.
 
Also, I don't want to be rude, but this thread has nothing to do with profiles or creation of said profiles. That's already out the window.
 
So...I kinda wanted to add something...then I looked at what I was typing and realized it probably would come off a certain way (Me being an Anti-Deist...not really hating christains, but definitely feeling a certain way because of my upbringing)

All I'll say is, I personally would like these discussions and profiles, but it likely wouldn't be a good thing for the community...

So. Ban it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
A genuine (but potentially controversial) criticism of this wiki in its usage of classical philosophy
Replies
30
Views
2K
Agnaa
Agnaa
DemiiPowa
Defining Omnipotence
Replies
1
Views
741
The_2nd_Existential_Seed
The_2nd_Existential_Seed
Clarification Of Sentence Phrasings And Addition Of Expected Punishments For Each Type Of Rule Breach For All Rules Pages
Replies
19
Views
1K
GarrixianXD
GarrixianXD
SSB64
The Only Tier 0 is the Author
Replies
2
Views
884
Lordhesperus
Lordhesperus
ThePrimalHunter
Rules On Rematches
Replies
1
Views
539
Flashlight237
Flashlight237
Back
Top