Regarding the existence of Composite human: Part 2

[Moritzva]

@Ayewale A lot of reasons have been given. The thread's just way too ******* long due to circular reasonings from both sides, that weeding them out is a nightmare.

 

[InfiniteSped]

I vote for nuking him along with the other composites. >_>

 

[ElixirBlue]

We do we want to get rid of CH? I don't see any benefit in doing that and CH is exceptionable enough for it not easily be replicated.

 

[Ayewale]

@Ayewale A lot of reasons have been given. The thread's just way too ******* long due to circular reasonings from both sides, that weeding them out is a nightmare.

Uh, this isn't an insult or jest in any way, but I really couldn't find any because this thread is several hundreds of posts long, my bad. but the CH post of the last thread stated that popularity was the main reason for CH's existence.

 

[Moritzva]

Right. As I said, the sea of circular reasoning from both sides has drowned out some nuance. There are plenty of invalid votes, surely, but those are on both sides.

As Wokistan put it-

I would like to know what other issues it causes besides just being against a rule that people agreed to make an exception to anyways. Rules exist to prevent harm from being done in some way. If there's no other problem caused, then what exactly is the problem wifh making such exceptions? Why shouldn't we be able to decide for our own community that it's an okay thing to have? The concerns about equipment and prep time are in no way specific to CH, and contradictory compositing also applies to just about every composite.

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

So we're just going to ignore 20-odd votes now?

6 of the votes for keeping CH are just "FRA" and don't explain the reason; same thing for 8 of the votes for deleting it. 7 of the votes for keeping it are just "it's fun".

If the invalid ones are removed, it's around 10 for keeping it and 15 for removing it, or so. And even then, votes alone are not all that matters.

 

[Moritzva]

Paulo, no offense, but grabbing exact numbers when we don't know exact numbers may be a tad difficult.

A lot of the votes for both sides didn't really address opposing points at all; worse more, FRA is technically valid reasoning, so any votes otherwise marked as invalid will likely just switch to FRA.

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

FRA is not valid unless they explain what the reasoning is, because otherwise the reasoning can't be checked if valid or not; and if anything, keeping FRA would just increase votes for the agree side". Also, votes are not really all that matters.

 

[Moritzva]

FRA is not valid unless they explain what the reasoning is.

That's wrong and contradictory, though. Using FRA, then proceeding to list out the reasons above, defeats the purpose of using FRA.

 

[Ayewale]

FRA isn't valid if the reasoning they are FRA'ing is invalid.

I'm not saying all the FRA's are all for invalid reasons. But I'm just pointing this out.

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

"FRA" makes it impossible to tell what they're voting for, so we can't tell if its a valid reason or not. This thread has way too many arguments being thrown around (both valid and invalid) for FRA to be useble; we can't keep a vote if we don't know what the reasoning behind it is. And even if we did decide to use it, keeping FRA would just increase votes for the agree side more than anything.

Also, votes are not really all that matters.

 

[Moritzva]

Which is the problem. Some reasoning may be invalid, but on both sides, there are good points.

In the end, do votes matter? Yes. Quality of arguments also matters, and both sides have a lot of incredibly poor arguments, e.g. "It's fun!" And "Well, that's just how it is!"

Which leads back to... inconclusive.

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

Yeah, you're right, both sides have good points, but both sides also have bad points. FRA makes it impossible to know what points are being used.

 

[Moritzva]

Unfortunately, that makes it nigh impossible to reach a decisive conclusion besides Inconclusive.

I am willing to participate in a thread revising Composite Human and our treatment of Composites and certain traits, though, to better fit the rules.

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

By the way, counting these last few votes, the count is:

Without FRA:

Delete CH: 16

Keep CH: 11


With FRA:

Delete CH: 24

Keep CH: 17

 

[Moritzva]

By the way, counting these last few votes, the count is:

Without FRA:

Delete CH: 16

Keep CH: 11


With FRA:

Delete CH: 24

Keep CH: 17

Are you sure? I got some different numbers earlier in the thread that placed them nigh-equal, before several votes for CH staying came.

 

[Andytrenom]

I personally find it dumb that someone would even use FRA unironically in a serious content revision

Imagine if a bunch of people went to an upgrade thread for a big verse, HST/DB/Mario whatever said nothing but "FRA" for the side they wanted and somehow managed to get their way because of this. Seriously, FRAs are a completely unreliable thing that someone can easily abuse to get what they want without ever needing to consider arguments properly, it should have no place outside of vs threads, and even there I'm not exactly pleased with what it has done for debating

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

Yeah, the count was 15 to 8, then one person voted to delete it, and three people voted for keeping it.

 

[Moritzva]

Hmm.

Weird, now we have conflicting vote counts, too-

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

The number of FRAs is also exactly 8 for deleting it and 6 for keeping it.

 

[Moritzva]

Can we move to attempting a compromise, then?

What could we change about CH to at least make him closer in-line? (such as revising how we treat him/composite traits)

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

You could if you want to, and that would solve some of the problems, although CH would still probably be way too broad of a Composite, and most people seem to agree to just delete the page and turn it into a blog, specially since no reason for a rule exception to be made for him has been given.

 

[Moritzva]

I wouldn't say "most."

But I did see plenty of opinions on CH issues that could be easily fixed. Matter is, I just want suggestions as to how.

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

I wouldn't say "most."

Delete CH: 16

Keep CH: 11

Most: "Greatest in amount or degree"

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

But yeah, there are problems that could be fixed, such as contradicting characteristics that would realistically be impossible, but even then, he would still be a Real Life Composite (with no valid reason for an exception to be made), and would still be extremely broad and unpredictable. There's also the fact that if we were to include negative characteristics, CH would just die, and what should or should not be considered negative can be a whole new discussion entirely.

 

[Moritzva]

I imagine we shouldn't include directly contradictory traits, or traits that are both harmful and helpful (e.g. being resistant to cold via being fat, yet also fast, or being immune to pain).

Also, another vote count (not yours) placed the votes closer to 22-22 or so.

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

I imagine we shouldn't include directly contradictory traits, or traits that are both harmful and helpful (e.g. being resistant to cold via being fat, yet also fast, or being immune to pain).
Also, another vote count (not yours) placed the votes closer to 22-22 or so.

Yeah, those should probably go out.

That was before the "FRA" votes (or votes providing no reasoning) and invalid votes (such as "CH is fun") were removed. The current vote count is pretty much this same one, except only counting the votes with valid reasoning.

 

[Moritzva]

Removing FRA and Invalid votes from both side (specifically invalid) would renove various weak points for removal as well ("It is how it is.") should be removed.

And, would FRA votes count simply if people restated reasons above instead?

A compromise would be most fitting, really- Paulo, what are your biggest issues with CH?

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

By "it is how it is" you mean "CH is against the rules"? That's not an invalid point, it being against the rules is a legitimate reason for removal, unless a reason is given for an exception to be made. Also, yeah, the problem with "FRA" is that the reasons can't be checked; if we actually know what the reasons are, they could be counted.

 

[Moritzva]

Then we should send messages to FRA/Invalid Reasoning people asking them to clarify.

The problem with "It is how it is" is that it fails to address the question: "But why is it is how it is, and how can that change?"

It's a surface-level answer that doesn't incite much debate or discussion. It's the equivalent of a parent setting down rules, "because I said so."

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

Following the rules is the standard, that's the point of rules, they have to be followed. It is not up to our side to explain why the rules should be followed, it's up to your side to explain why they shouldn't. Arguing whether the rules are right or not is not the point of this thread, we're here to decide whether CH fits the rules or not.

 

[Moritzva]

Except we the people play a role in making those rules. We quite literally decide why rules are in place. And if those reasons are faulty, or do not apply in a certain scenario, then why are we enforcing it?

I do admit, there are issues that should be addressed, and I'd love to address them. Paulo, what are your main issues with Composite Human?

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

Why are we enforcing it? Because they're rules.

Yes, we, the people, play a role in making those rules, and yes, it is possible for them to be faulty, but this thread isn't about changing the rules, this thread is about whether CH fits the rules or not, and if he doesn't, and no reason is given for an exception to be made, he gets deleted.

Also, the reasons completely apply to this scenario. I explained many times in the last thread why most of the reasons for the deletion of the other Real Life Composites also apply to CH (I can copy and paste it if you want). The rules totally apply in this case, and the only reason an exception has been made so far was due to CH's popularity, which isn't a valid reason.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

By that logic couldn't we just as easily say "no we don't think CH is fun and regardless of the rules it should go?". Either way there's a lot of reason for CH to go.

 

[Moritzva]

I didn't say anything about it being fun, nor do I stand for that to be a reason for CH staying. CH is fun, to me, but that's not the point.

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

Some of the reasons for the other Composites to be deleted were:

• Built by mish-mashing the characteristics of multiple beings of a species which are broadly linked under a single definition.
• Characteristics are just merged together with no regard for what is contradictory or mutually exclusive.
• Not comparable to Fictional Composites due to having no specific setting with clearly defined feats and scaling.
• Has no actual verse or canon.
• Imaginary thought experiment at best and Real-Person Fic at worst.
• The main purpose of profiles for The Real World is scaling to other verses and providing benchmarks, which can't be done with these characters who do not exist.

CH fits all of those, this isn't a case of "it's doing no harm" or "it doesn't apply in this sittuation", CH blantently breaks the rules just as much as the other Composites.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

I didn't say anything about it being fun, nor do I stand for that to be a reason for CH staying. CH is fun, to me, but that's not the point.

The point is that even if the rules are as subjective and malleable as you say, people can just as easily respond with "well we think it should go". Either it works for both sides or it doesn't work at all.

 

[Wokistan]

@paulo

I can't really see any composites which don't fit the first 3, pretty sure real life feats are if anything more clearly defined than fictional ones since physics actually works and we can just redo shit, and I'm not exactly seeing the problem with the next two. I don't think the real world verse has any more of a purpose than any other, it's all just indexing of stats.

I wouldn't care that much if all composites got nixed but I don't see what makes CH sufficiently different from the others, basically.

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

Real Life Composites are not comparable to Fictional Composites due to not actually having a specific setting, verse or canon.

Composite Link and Composite Godzilla are composites of specifically relevant versions of already stablished characters (not even all the versions, extremely minor stuff like toys or commercials aren't included, since they're not relevant enough), meanwhile, Composite Human, not being an stablished character, is a thought experiment made by combining billions of unrelated people, and is incredibly more broad than any Fictional Composite will ever be.

Also, yeah, the main purpose of profiles for The Real World is scaling to other verses (such as "X character can defeat X animal" or "X character is stronger than X weapon", etc).

 

[Wokistan]

• Built by mish-mashing the characteristics of multiple beings of a species which are broadly linked under a single definition.

• Characteristics are just merged together with no regard for what is contradictory or mutually exclusive.

These are things that seem to apply to all of the composites.

The links are usually just straight up different characters, hell in Twilight Princess you can encounter a different one in the same game. That's not exactly different from combining unrelated people just because those people are real.

Citation needed