Regarding the legitimacy of Brandon Rogers and The Nameless One

[Agnaa]

@Agnaa Arbitrary means something that isn't rooted in solid reasoning or fixed standards. Having a rule that other sites don't doesn't make that rule arbitrary, it just means the people in charge of the site have different ideas of what they want it to be than others.

Then we simply disagree on the definition of "arbitrary." I think that anything based on individual judgement is arbitrary, and most of the site's rules are based on individual judgement rather than being objectively derived. Because they can't be objectively derived, there's no platonic ideal of "fictional character tiering."

@Yobo I don't believe that Masadaverse was completely unknown outside of vs debating communities when it was first created as a piece of art or added to the site. I don't think it was a VN created by a Japanese fan of vs debating, who shared it with his other Japanese fans of vs debating, until it got to western fans of vs debating who then added it to the site. That seems quite frankly impossible to me. It probably got spread through VN fans in general.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

We could debate semantics on it all day, but at the end of the day up the rule is self-contradictory and unreliable, which is not a good thing regardless of how far you extend.

I have not said anything about you, Ant.

 

[Antvasima]

Then call it self-contradictory and unreliable instead (I just think that it is diffuse, in lack of better options, but nevertheless). The term hypocricy implies deliberate intent, and given that I worded the rules (after thorough discussions and having it accepted naturally), I am implicated in it.

 

[Agnaa]

We could debate semantics on it all day, but at the end of the day up the rule is self-contradictory and unreliable, which is not a good thing regardless of how far you extend.

I have not said anything about you, Ant.

I don't think it's been shown to be self-contradictory and unreliable?

 

[Yobo_Blue]

@Agnaa

Here is the thread. I got a few details wrong, but I'll let you judge it for yourself.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Then call it self-contradictory and unreliable instead (I just think that it is diffuse, in lack of better options, but nevertheless). The term hypocricy implies deliberate intent, and given that I worded the rules (after first have thorough discussions and having it accepted naturally), I am implicated in it.

I do not personally believe it is just those things however. The definition you cited did not imply the necessity of intentional deceit, either.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

I don't think it's been shown to be self-contradictory and unreliable?

I have explained why it is, however, and the reasons for why have been described above.

 

[Agnaa]

I have explained why it is, however, and the reasons for why have been described above.

If I have responded to your reasons, you haven't defended yourself adequately. If I haven't responded to your reasons, I must have missed them, so could you please repeat them?

Also, after glancing at the thread, the creator himself did ask for it to be added, so I'm fine with the verse being banned.

 

[Antvasima]

Can you summarise why it is A: Self-Contradictory, and B: Unreliable?

 

[Yobo_Blue]

If I have responded to your reasons, you haven't defended yourself adequately. If I haven't responded to your reasons, I must have missed them, so could you please repeat them?

Also, after glancing at the thread, the creator himself did ask for it to be added, so I'm fine with the verse being banned.

As you said yourself, my argument has not been entirely dismantled yet.

Perhaps, but what's more important in this instance is the reasoning others gave for its banning, as they can be used as guidelines in the future.

 

[Agnaa]

As you said yourself, my argument has not been entirely dismantled yet.

Perhaps, but what's more important in this instance is the reasoning others gave for its banning, as they can be used as guidelines in the future.

That was specifically and only in regards to Channel Awesome characters not being allowed while Brandon Rogers was allowed. I think that if Brandon Rogers is allowed, Channel Awesome characters should be too. However, I think that neither should be allowed, given the current rules.

I disagree with their reasoning, so I don't really care.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Can you summarise why it is A: Self-Contradictory, and B: Unreliable?

To be short, it is very hard to apply in any logical capacity due to the vagueness of the rule in question, the fact that it does not apply to every character in the same way (as has been noted to be a absolute necessity in other threads regarding rules), and the fact it is more arbitrary than most other rules without having any reasoning behind it.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

@Agnaa

I haven't really contributed to the argument much other than reasons why that particular example/reasoning was flawed, so I'm not the person to ask.

It would still be good to take note, but ok.

 

[Agnaa]

None of those make it self-contradictory.

It could probably do with being reworded. Not applying to every character the same way is the point and isn't an issue, we have many other rules that work that way. I already pointed out my disagreements with your use of the word "arbitrary". It probably does have reasoning behind it, but I wasn't there when the rule was made, so I can't say.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Those were mostly for the argument of unreliability, but it's clear there is a high level of contradiction based on what is currently said. Discussion on that should be moved to the other thread.

I agree a rewording is in order regardless as well.

 

[Agnaa]

@Agnaa

I haven't really contributed to the argument much other than reasons why that particular example/reasoning was flawed, so I'm not the person to ask.

It would still be good to take note, but ok.

I thought you considered yourself a good person to ask, considering you said you explained why it was self-contradictory and unreliable, but if you don't want to defend that stance that's fine.

 

[Antvasima]

@Yobo

That still only means that it is diffusely worded, due to that we are not lawyers who can precisely cover every angle though.

Anyway, I mostly agree with Agnaa. Perhaps it is better to not allow Brandon if it opens the doors for regular Youtube self-inserts without a story. I am uncertain.

 

[Agnaa]

Those were mostly for the argument of unreliability, but it's clear there is a high level of contradiction based on what is currently said. Discussion on that should be moved to the other thread.

I agree a rewording is in order regardless as well.

Again, how is there a high level of contradiction? You keep saying it's there but you haven't explained why.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Anyway, I do believe that Caleb and Brandon do fall within current rules, as they due have obviously fictitiousness and story.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

I thought you considered yourself a good person to ask, considering you said you explained why it was self-contradictory and unreliable, but if you don't want to defend that stance that's fine.

Sorry, I thought you were referring to the larger argument on Brandon and Caleb. As I've said, discussion on the rule should be moved to the other thread, where I will defend my stance.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Again, how is there a high level of contradiction? You keep saying it's there but you haven't explained why.

Not sure what you don't understand. That is the reasoning behind it being contradictory. Do you want a explanation of contradiction in and of itself in order to ensure we have the same definition of it?

 

[Agnaa]

Not sure what you don't understand. That is the reasoning behind it being contradictory. Do you want a explanation of contradiction in and of itself in order to ensure we have the same definition of it?

Yes please.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

I would say that discussion should be moved to the other thread as well honestly.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

What is the consensus here?

 

[Yobo_Blue]

There is none yet. There is another thread revisiting the rule itself as of now.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/2966447

It is here.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

I agree that IRL people using special effects is different than live action fiction. Sadly, as it also means I can't get High 1-C Brian Greene from PBS Nova