SAO Upgrade CRT | Absorbing the Sun or something idk

[LordGriffin1000]

Looking back I don't have one great post, so I'd summarize it as...

I believe that the OP's interpretation is seeing a common turn of phrase when witnessing a certain phenomenon, and taking it too literally. As if you saw "he was up in an instant" and you tried arguing for infinite speed, because an instant is 0 seconds. Saying such a statement would probably mean something more like 1 second isn't saying that the narrator is lying.

My contention is that when people talk about objects in the sky, they often talk about them as they're perceived from the planet they're on. When people talk say "the sun will dim", they mean "the light from the sun coming to this part of the Earth will dim". And similarly, I think when the narrator says "Solus on the western horizon lost all its light", I think they mean "Solus on the western horizon, as it appears to people on this part of the planet, lost all its light". I don't think they're using some rich metaphors, I just think it's similar to how in most languages "star" just means "stellar object" and so covers planets and galaxies as well. The way we talk about stellar objects is more grounded in how we perceive them, than in how they actually are.

And so, I don't think the entirety of Solus' light was absorbed; only the amount that fell on a certain area of the planet for a time.

I think understand, this is a fair perspective. While not an exact one for one, there is a feat from a different series that I do have solid knowledge on, and the character states that they are absorbing the heat of the sun itself and visually it looks as though they are absorbing it from all around the it but another interpretation was she only absorbed the heat of the sun over the general area despite the visual look because the after effect doesn't match the first visual of the feat. It's not saying the character is using flowery language, it's just a different interpretation.. Again, this isn't the same as the feat from this verse but I'm just using it as an example that I think I understand the point you're trying to make. If I'm off on your point about interpretation, let me know.

I guess I'll just say that I don't necessarily have a definitive stance regarding this topic anymore. However, I still think the interpretation in the OP is still possible, though I can't say what the true intention was (I'm not the author), and Agnaa isn't essentially wrong in how the it can be interpreted another way. It seems like the thread is in a deadlock and I think my opinion is going to change that so if nothing is decided upon, we could go for that possibly/likely rating (yes, I know some people don't like that compromise). Anyway, I'm still tired and don't have much else productive to add, I can only hope this thread reaches some conclusion.

 

[CurrySenpai]

I guess I'll just say that I don't necessarily have a definitive stance regarding this topic anymore. However, I still think the interpretation in the OP is still possible, though I can't say what the true intention was (I'm not the author), and Agnaa isn't essentially wrong in how the it can be interpreted another way. It seems like the thread is in a deadlock and I think my opinion is going to change that so if nothing is decided upon, we could go for that possibly/likely rating (yes, I know some people don't like that compromise). Anyway, I'm still tired and don't have much else productive to add, I can only hope this thread reaches some conclusion.

Is it alright if I put you down as agree (possibly/likely) then? Or would neutral be more fitting?

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Is it alright if I put you down as agree (possibly/likely) then? Or would neutral be more fitting?

Agree (possibly/likely) works for me.

 

[CurrySenpai]

Alright then, thank you for your assistance in this thread.

I think at this point we should probably just go with the compromise, idk how Agnaa, DMUA, and Bambu feel but I think it’s just the best course of action at this point.

That being said, should we use the old feat DMUA used as a general idea for the not possibly potency? I say this as the feat it WAS used for isn’t valid anymore because it’s not the same thing as this scene but it’s still a general idea

 

[CurrySenpai]

The curse of the SAO supporters… and the one who couldn’t fully leave behind that curse. They would all bare witness to the bare scans of the one who is free, to the one who left it all behind, and her overwhelming intensity!

I’m going to go insane.

 

[Agnaa]

Also I wasn’t saying it was the translator’s choice of words. I really doubt it’s much different. Besides, I feel like honing I’m on this one specific piece which seems to be the only thing left holding up the opposition for the CRT feels kinda… idk the world pedantic? Just feels really unimportant and I’m not really interested in this specific discussion too much anymore

This has already happened once before, can y'all stop arguing in this way?

I focus on the physics, someone goes "actually the physics doesn't matter, why don't you look at the text?"

I focus on the text, someone goes "damn why are you just focusing on the text, don't you have anything else?"

Made even worse by the people who said this having been around for me having talked about both of those.

Stop misrepresenting my arguments by ping-ponging between what's relevant and pretending that my last post is the only argument I've ever made.

I think understand, this is a fair perspective. While not an exact one for one, there is a feat from a different series that I do have solid knowledge on, and the character states that they are absorbing the heat of the sun itself and visually it looks as though they are absorbing it from all around the it but another interpretation was she only absorbed the heat of the sun over the general area despite the visual look because the after effect doesn't match the first visual of the feat. It's not saying the character is using flowery language, it's just a different interpretation.. Again, this isn't the same as the feat from this verse but I'm just using it as an example that I think I understand the point you're trying to make. If I'm off on your point about interpretation, let me know.

I guess I'll just say that I don't necessarily have a definitive stance regarding this topic anymore. However, I still think the interpretation in the OP is still possible, though I can't say what the true intention was (I'm not the author), and Agnaa isn't essentially wrong in how the it can be interpreted another way. It seems like the thread is in a deadlock and I think my opinion is going to change that so if nothing is decided upon, we could go for that possibly/likely rating (yes, I know some people don't like that compromise). Anyway, I'm still tired and don't have much else productive to add, I can only hope this thread reaches some conclusion.

I'm a lot more fine with that feat because of the visual. Like, I think the statement is very weak evidence in favour, the visual is moderate evidence in favour, while the improper environmental effects are moderate evidence against. The main difference I see with the SAO feat is the exact nature (which doesn't matter too much imo), and lacking the visual confirmation.

Alright then, thank you for your assistance in this thread.

I think at this point we should probably just go with the compromise, idk how Agnaa, DMUA, and Bambu feel but I think it’s just the best course of action at this point.

I'd like some effort to be put in to get other staff members looking at it. Primarily, staff members that haven't commented yet, and secondarily, staff members that haven't viewed this recently (just Theglassman12 and Maverick_Zero_X I think).

I view those sorts of compromises as more of the thing to do if we truly can't get anyone else willing to give an input.

 

[DMUA]

While not an exact one for one, there is a feat from a different series that I do have solid knowledge on, and the character states that they are absorbing the heat of the sun itself and visually it looks as though they are absorbing it from all around the it but another interpretation was she only absorbed the heat of the sun over the general area despite the visual look because the after effect doesn't match the first visual of the feat.

They also seem to be doing this just to restore the nearby glacier, rather than deprive the entire solar system of heat. In that sense, it is indeed a very similar circumstance where it'd be extremely excessive to drain the entire sun of energy and cause effects across the entire solar system, as opposed to those visuals being a representation from heat being drained from even the skies around it to let the local environment restore itself.

I think at this point we should probably just go with the compromise, idk how Agnaa, DMUA, and Bambu feel but I think it’s just the best course of action at this point.

I find it a bit unmoving that this is being suggested in light of someone saying they just don't really have a decisive stance but maybe it's possibly a thing, especially when the opposing staff have a lot more insight and articulated opinions about the context. I can't really stop a possibly I guess, but I really just don't agree with it.

That being said, should we use the old feat DMUA used as a general idea for the not possibly potency? I say this as the feat it WAS used for isn’t valid anymore because it’s not the same thing as this scene but it’s still a general idea

I don't know why the previous feat spontaneously became invalid, but it would be far lower with the value Agnaa agreed to (which would total at a 20 kilometer radius)

 

[CurrySenpai]

I'd like some effort to be put in to get other staff members looking at it. Primarily, staff members that haven't commented yet, and secondarily, staff members that haven't viewed this recently (just Theglassman12 and Maverick_Zero_X I think).

I view those sorts of compromises as more of the thing to do if we truly can't get anyone else willing to give an input.

I mean we have, me and Fuji commented staff at the beginning middle and end of this threads life span, we haven’t been sitting on our asses doing nothing, hell, even Reiner tried to get some.

This has already happened once before, can y'all stop arguing in this way?

I focus on the physics, someone goes "actually the physics doesn't matter, why don't you look at the text?"

I focus on the text, someone goes "damn why are you just focusing on the text, don't you have anything else?"

Made even worse by the people who said this having been around for me having talked about both of those.

Stop misrepresenting my arguments by ping-ponging between what's relevant and pretending that my last post is the only argument I've ever made.

Cool , I’m sorry but I’m just too checked out to care about something we already agreed to disagree on and I don’t really like the passive aggressiveness.

 

[CurrySenpai]

I don't know why the previous feat spontaneously became invalid, but it would be far lower with the value Agnaa agreed to (which would total at a 20 kilometer radius)

It wasn’t spontaneous I had been saying it since the start or earlier in the thread. Even in the anime fight vs Gabriel, Kirito doesn’t create a blanket or absorb light, the only absorbing that takes places is of people’s Incarnation, it is a hax thing not an AP thing.

 

[Agnaa]

I mean we have, me and Fuji commented staff at the beginning middle and end of this threads life span, we haven’t been sitting on our asses doing nothing, hell, even Reiner tried to get some.

I didn't mean to imply otherwise, I simply meant to ask we not give up until every discussion mod/admin has been asked.

If y'all are too tired to do that I can start pinging waves of people. But I'd prefer y'all contact since you'd know who has already been contacted.

Cool , I’m sorry but I’m just too checked out to care about something we already agreed to disagree on and I don’t really like the passive aggressiveness.

Didn't mean to come off as passive-aggression, just as a stern and exasperated direct request.

 

[CurrySenpai]

I didn't mean to imply otherwise, I simply meant to ask we not give up until every discussion mod/admin has been asked.

If y'all are too tired to do that I can start pinging waves of people. But I'd prefer y'all contact since you'd know who has already been contacted.

Didn't mean to come off as passive-aggression, just as a stern and exasperated direct request.

It’s fine, apologies. I’m not really frustrated with like “OMG why won’t you guys just agree or make a compromise!!!!” Its moreso when these threads last so long and I’m sitting here like “Damn is it ever going to end?” and no progress is made. Anyways, I’ll try to contact some more staff.

 

[Xmark12]

 

[CurrySenpai]

True!

 

[DMUA]

Even in the anime fight vs Gabriel, Kirito doesn’t create a blanket or absorb light

We clearly see it shift from day to night in light of him using it, and we know it's ability is absorption. I don't see why it has to exclusively be Incarnation being funneled in when we clearly see the level of light in the area change after they use it.

I'd like some effort to be put in to get other staff members looking at it. Primarily, staff members that haven't commented yet, and secondarily, staff members that haven't viewed this recently (just Theglassman12 and Maverick_Zero_X I think).

We don't have much of a choice, but I don't really see a lot of merit to calling in more staff that have no investment or cursory knowledge of the context. At the very least, if there was to be a calling post I'd recommend also linking to a few messages throughout the thread detailing the core points of the debate.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Honestly, it might be better to call for a re-vote among the staff that voted (given that some voted much earlier on in the thread) than it would be to try and contact more staff

 

[CurrySenpai]

I'll ping them then
@Maverick_Zero_X @DarkDragonMedeus @Theglassman12

 

[CloverDragon03]

For the record, by the way, my stance remains unchanged

 

[CurrySenpai]

For the record, by the way, my stance remains unchanged

Arigatou!!!!! THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!!!

 

[CurrySenpai]

We are gonna be here forever

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I don't think my stance has changed since I last posted.

 

[DMUA]

At this point I think we should remind ourselves of what Discussion Rules has laid out in precise detail.

The concluding evaluations must be handled by Thread Moderators, Administrators, and Bureaucrats, who should make an effort to base their evaluations on valid arguments, not personal opinions.

I can't find a precise statement on it in the rules, but the impression I've always been under, and is implied here, is that the strength of arguments and reasoning for agreeing or disagreeing takes precedent over just a votecount. Otherwise we'd have instances of overt jury nullification through people just deciding to disagree or agree with something, which is something we want to avoid when deciding what statistics we put onto the site.

Although the evaluation of each staff member carries equal weight, the final decision regarding the approval of a content revision may be influenced by other factors such as the expertise and knowledge of the staff members involved, the complexity and controversy of the revision, and the popularity or prominence of the affected series verse. In terms of decision-making authority, bureaucrats are given the highest consideration, followed by administrators, and then thread moderators.

Admittedly I'm a bit disappointed that calc group members not having sway is a genuine codified rule, but I'll have to live with it. Let's review all the votes so far with these two things in mind.

I don't mind the likely/possibly

No elaboration on why they believe in one side or another, or even really much of an upgrade from their prior statement of "neutral", they're just stating that they don't object to something being passed as possible. They just clarified their stance hasn't really moved from this.

The High 6-A rating looks fine I guess, not exactly sold on the opposition side.

No elaboration, the statement of "I guess" indicates an unfamiliarity with the material to be very decisive, as opposed to not being "sold" on the opposing side (prior to making sure to catch everyone up to speed on the discussion, since we got too used to it being the same group of people knowing the same material). They're also a thread moderator, which is mentioned in discussion rules to have less overall authority.

I think DMUA’s points make sense.

Honestly, not that great either, but they specifically reference who they're agreeing with and thus show an acknowledgement of the source of the arguments they side with.

Just from reading the OP, my view is:

• I disagree with the idea that it was the entirety of Solus' light output. From context, it seemed like it was referring to all the light hitting that area of the planet. That's just how people talk about stuff like that. I think the comparison to an eclipse actually supports this; eclipses on Earth only involve a spot across the planet's surface being darkened.
• I'm a bit unsure about the general applicability of this; it was explicitly not generating heat, and it seems to have killed monsters which, from that little context, read like they could very well be weak to light. Especially given how no notable effects on the environment were mentioned, aside from it hurting some people's eyes.

And so, I'd want it indexed as "{whatever tier that amount of light hitting an area the size of that forest is} with Light Manipulation", which within matches can be used to absorb that much light from the environment/opponent, and use it to hurt their eyes or dispel constructs made of darkness, or that are otherwise weak to light.

Note that these, especially the bit about applicability, could easily change with more context I'm not aware of.

He very deliberately points out what aspects of it he finds important to his opinion, and continued elaborating when disputed throughout the thread up to this point.

I will start this with recognition for the most trivial of the things I want to post: I think Kantaantr's posts are ill-phrased for friendly discussion and generally drips with unpleasantness at best. Play nice, please- I don't really give a shit if you preface your mean post by saying "heads up, I may be mean be warned!"; I don't think it warrants a rule violation but taking an aside every other sentence to talk about how stupid the other person's position is doesn't really assist the overall point, it's just souring the thread. However, while his post was the most concentrated source of rudeness, DMUA pointed out the others that are ill-willed- to an extent I expect better behavior from someone given credence as an expert on the verse, but chilling the hell out is advisable for all parties worked up over the thread.

Now, onto scaling matters. I have been asked by both sides to come here and give my opinion on a verse I don't like much and so I hope that this is appreciated and that someone writes poetry about how turbo cool that is for me to do. The poem should also appreciate the original introduction I wrote to this message which included a bit about my misfortune and damnation to be here- not that I actually am damned, I just like being dramatic.

Ahem.

The Actual Evaluation
We're doing in-message titles now, sick.

It should come as no great surprise that I tend to consider the conservative estimates as more realistic than the generous ones- a type of "innocent-until-proven-guilty" affair, in which much higher estimations need to prove to me that they are more likely. Even failing this, I think the arguments in this thread for these lower estimations are much more likely. If it is similar to a solar eclipse (that is to say, just blocking out the light of the sun), then obviously the OP's position cannot stand. If it is a matter of absorbing sunlight, then I still find myself agreeing with DMUA's position, which seems to me to more directly address in-universe pieces of context and give a more likely answer to questions on this feat.

I should also mention Kantantr's thing regarding the perspective here being from the main character, who is seeing this without really being able to comprehend what's going on. If this is true (and it seems to be, nobody seems to be arguing against it at least) then I would find it doubly irresponsible to regard this feat with such a great estimation as the OP does, given that the person talking about the feat in-universe does not speak from a position of authority.

Curry has said she wants to make another post on this and I suppose I will be obligated by infernal contract to speak on this again as a result, but this is my current opinion- I agree more with DMUA than I do with Curry (sorry Curry, again).

Very specific as to what he agrees or disagrees with and why. Bambu's also familiar with SAO's content (An agreement from his sister to watch the whole series; one of perilous woe, but he undertook it all the same and does get the idea of what's happening. My belated poetic statement, for a lack of ability to write true poetry on how turbo cool they were for coming at all)

I think understand, this is a fair perspective. While not an exact one for one, there is a feat from a different series that I do have solid knowledge on, and the character states that they are absorbing the heat of the sun itself and visually it looks as though they are absorbing it from all around the it but another interpretation was she only absorbed the heat of the sun over the general area despite the visual look because the after effect doesn't match the first visual of the feat. It's not saying the character is using flowery language, it's just a different interpretation.. Again, this isn't the same as the feat from this verse but I'm just using it as an example that I think I understand the point you're trying to make. If I'm off on your point about interpretation, let me know.

I guess I'll just say that I don't necessarily have a definitive stance regarding this topic anymore. However, I still think the interpretation in the OP is still possible, though I can't say what the true intention was (I'm not the author), and Agnaa isn't essentially wrong in how the it can be interpreted another way. It seems like the thread is in a deadlock and I think my opinion is going to change that so if nothing is decided upon, we could go for that possibly/likely rating (yes, I know some people don't like that compromise). Anyway, I'm still tired and don't have much else productive to add, I can only hope this thread reaches some conclusion.

Despite the extensive input, they directly state a lack of a definitive stance, just that the interpretation is possible (while also openly acknowledging Agnaa's points) and stating possibly should be used if the thread can't be properly decided.

---

So, looking over all the staff input we have, it's an equal number of agrees and disagrees, but one side has more administrators giving more in depth opinions (which in Agnaa's case, they actively defend) and decisively stating their disagreement.

If we can't get more staff input, it's clear what our Discussion Rules suggest should take priority here. Any staff that are more invested than I have observed should speak within the next 48 hours or forever hold their peace.

For content revision suggestions, generally, a standard grace period of 48 hours should be allowed for the reviewing staff members to evaluate and approve them.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

At this point I think we should remind ourselves of what Discussion Rules has laid out in precise detail.

I can't find a precise statement on it in the rules, but the impression I've always been under, and is implied here, is that the strength of arguments and reasoning for agreeing or disagreeing takes precedent over just a votecount. Otherwise we'd have instances of overt jury nullification through people just deciding to disagree or agree with something, which is something we want to avoid when deciding what statistics we put onto the site.

Admittedly I'm a bit disappointed that calc group members not having sway is a genuine codified rule, but I'll have to live with it. Let's review all the votes so far with these two things in mind.

No elaboration on why they believe in one side or another, or even really much of an upgrade from their prior statement of "neutral", they're just stating that they don't object to something being passed as possible. They just clarified their stance hasn't really moved from this.

No elaboration, the statement of "I guess" indicates an unfamiliarity with the material to be very decisive, as opposed to not being "sold" on the opposing side (prior to making sure to catch everyone up to speed on the discussion, since we got too used to it being the same group of people knowing the same material). They're also a thread moderator, which is mentioned in discussion rules to have less overall authority.

Honestly, not that great either, but they specifically reference who they're agreeing with and thus show an acknowledgement of the source of the arguments they side with.

He very deliberately points out what aspects of it he finds important to his opinion, and continued elaborating when disputed throughout the thread up to this point.

Very specific as to what he agrees or disagrees with and why. Bambu's also familiar with SAO's content (An agreement from his sister to watch the whole series; one of perilous woe, but he undertook it all the same and does get the idea of what's happening. My belated poetic statement, for a lack of ability to write true poetry on how turbo cool they were for coming at all)

Despite the extensive input, they directly state a lack of a definitive stance, just that the interpretation is possible (while also openly acknowledging Agnaa's points) and stating possibly should be used if the thread can't be properly decided.

---

So, looking over all the staff input we have, it's an equal number of agrees and disagrees, but one side has more administrators giving more in depth opinions (which in Agnaa's case, they actively defend) and decisively stating their disagreement.

If we can't get more staff input, it's clear what our Discussion Rules suggest should take priority here. Any staff that are more invested than I have observed should speak within the next 48 hours or forever hold their peace (As also stated to be the grace period for these cases)

That is a lot of words for "I don't like that these people disagree with me ". It is absolutely insane to go "Glass' opinion means less because he said 'I guess', while Mav's opinion means more because she said she agreed with me specifically". It's perhaps a bit telling that the OP and her supporters are willing to tally up votes they disagree with and do not find convincing as fairly as possible, but that's apparently too much for you to do. A bit pathetic, if I'm being honest, and it's sad that this isn't the first time I've seen staff do this.

We are also very aware of the fact that those in support of the revisions admit that there is some ambiguity to it, which is precisely why we are pushing for a possibly/likely rating at this point.

 

[CloverDragon03]

At this point I think we should remind ourselves of what Discussion Rules has laid out in precise detail.

I can't find a precise statement on it in the rules, but the impression I've always been under, and is implied here, is that the strength of arguments and reasoning for agreeing or disagreeing takes precedent over just a votecount. Otherwise we'd have instances of overt jury nullification through people just deciding to disagree or agree with something, which is something we want to avoid when deciding what statistics we put onto the site.

Admittedly I'm a bit disappointed that calc group members not having sway is a genuine codified rule, but I'll have to live with it. Let's review all the votes so far with these two things in mind.

No elaboration on why they believe in one side or another, or even really much of an upgrade from their prior statement of "neutral", they're just stating that they don't object to something being passed as possible. They just clarified their stance hasn't really moved from this.

No elaboration, the statement of "I guess" indicates an unfamiliarity with the material to be very decisive, as opposed to not being "sold" on the opposing side (prior to making sure to catch everyone up to speed on the discussion, since we got too used to it being the same group of people knowing the same material). They're also a thread moderator, which is mentioned in discussion rules to have less overall authority.

Honestly, not that great either, but they specifically reference who they're agreeing with and thus show an acknowledgement of the source of the arguments they side with.

He very deliberately points out what aspects of it he finds important to his opinion, and continued elaborating when disputed throughout the thread up to this point.

Very specific as to what he agrees or disagrees with and why. Bambu's also familiar with SAO's content (An agreement from his sister to watch the whole series; one of perilous woe, but he undertook it all the same and does get the idea of what's happening. My belated poetic statement, for a lack of ability to write true poetry on how turbo cool they were for coming at all)

Despite the extensive input, they directly state a lack of a definitive stance, just that the interpretation is possible (while also openly acknowledging Agnaa's points) and stating possibly should be used if the thread can't be properly decided.

---

So, looking over all the staff input we have, it's an equal number of agrees and disagrees, but one side has more administrators giving more in depth opinions (which in Agnaa's case, they actively defend) and decisively stating their disagreement.

If we can't get more staff input, it's clear what our Discussion Rules suggest should take priority here. Any staff that are more invested than I have observed should speak within the next 48 hours or forever hold their peace.

...Not a fan of this, honestly, because it's teetering on the edge of invalidating staff votes for personally-believed reasons - worst of all, nothing that's even objective to begin with. As we know, that's not something you're allowed to do. In addition, our Discussion Rules don't permit this sort of thing to begin with. Show me where it says you can invalidate staff votes for what you believe to be their reasons not being good enough.

Also, why is Mav's vote considered good enough but Glass's isn't when they express the same sentiment, but for different sides? Does Glass need to specifically say "Curry makes sense to me" for it to be considered a 'good enough' vote? I find that ridiculous.

 

[CurrySenpai]

Snip

DMUA, I mean this with absolute sincerity and no malice whatsoever, but this genuinely comes off as spite at this point. You are my friend, at the end of the day, but that last message has by all means disappointed and disheartened me and gives me MAJOR Weekly vibes, aka "You must specifically provide the EXACT reasons why you agree, or disagree and if you don't then your vote shouldn't count, and you have no stake in this."

Just because they aren't as experienced in the topic doesn't mean their opinions don't count, the whole point of threads is for the supporters and opposition to provide concise arguments for staff and others to make educated decisions on. I don't know why all of a sudden, out of all the threads, you are trying to enforce this seemingly niche and kind of nonexistent rule to this thread. I'm sorry, but I can't really stand idly by and just not call it out, this is spite.

You have genuinely disappointed me, I don't know if my opinion on this matters much, but I am hurt.

It's been 3 years since any sort of major SAO revision or upgrade has happened, and every time I try to do it I feel like it's useless, it has been a major motivation killer for me on the site. I know this is a very emotionally charged message but like, come on man.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I maintain what I said before. A re-vote is the best solution we have available to use right now, and trying to force a conclusion one way or another - especially via, quite frankly, underhanded methods - does us no good.

 

[DMUA]

It is absolutely insane to go "Glass' opinion means less because he said 'I guess', while Mav's opinion means more because she said she agreed with me specifically"

The specification matters more than the person. Much as you want to admit things aren't certain, I prefaced by saying "It's not that great either". I'll also remind that aggression isn't encouraged, and you can state I'm doing something wrong without it, as Clover demonstrates.

...Not a fan of this, honestly, because it's teetering on the edge of invalidating staff votes for personally-believed reasons - worst of all, nothing that's even objective to begin with. As we know, that's not something you're allowed to do. In addition, our Discussion Rules don't permit this sort of thing to begin with. Show me where it says you can invalidate staff votes for what you believe to be their reasons not being good enough.

It's not invalidation. If there were more staff that agreed with a specific proposal and thus we weren't in deadlock, then that decision would go through. But there's no sway- the numbers are exactly even one way or another with a discussion that Staff simply don't seem to care about getting into, and our rules very clearly illustrate other potential factors that can be considered in passing or not passing something. If staff are inclined to comment, they can do so and ignore my statement.

It's been 3 years since any sort of major SAO revision or upgrade has happened, and every time I try to do it I feel like it's useless, it has been a major motivation killer for me on the site. I know this is a very emotionally charged message but like, come on man.

It's also been a long time since new content has come out to change given context, Reki's just split between a lot of series and Yen Press sits on their hands with translation. It's just how it is, not everything needs to be regularly revised (In fact, there's a lot of stuff I like which hasn't been touched in awhile, primarily inFAMOUS given the last game was 9 years ago). My DMs are open if you want to resolve an emotional issue.

 

[CloverDragon03]

It's not invalidation. If there were more staff that agreed with a specific proposal and thus we weren't in deadlock, then that decision would go through. But there's no sway- the numbers are exactly even one way or another with a discussion that Staff simply don't seem to care about getting into, and our rules very clearly illustrate other potential factors that can be considered in passing or not passing something. If staff are inclined to comment, they can do so and ignore my statement.

No, I'm going to be the one to say, as blunt as it is: you are invalidating staff votes. In fact, I'd consider this hardly being up for debate. And not just that, but you are demonstrating a clear bias in how you count them, since despite Glass's and Mav's comments being the same in nature, you specifically choose to count Mav's that disagrees with the OP and not count Glass's that agrees with the OP. No, just saying "oh but Mav said who they're agreeing with so it's fine" isn't a valid excuse, as the nature of agreeing with the OP is that the OP's points make sense to that person - making these two responses dead-even in their content.

As an addendum, while I do agree that Fuji's aggression was a bit much, I can also acknowledge that I understand why she acted in such a way given how frankly underhanded this is of you to do. I'd like to ask you to stop with this, and to not try to force a thread rejection in such a manner.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I will note that while DMUA is largely correct and our technical rules at current would support rejection over acceptance, what I do know of SAO is only what was covered by the anime up to a point. I have the ability of context and how the world is generally written, I suppose, but not direct experience with the arc these events transpired in.

Votes with greater levels of detail and apparent knowledge are held to be more relevant. DMUA isn't manipulating anything here, his citations of the rules support the notion of his words even if, in practice, we don't follow them all the time.

All this nastiness could be amended if the suggested staff were to give a more detailed message regarding what they agreed with and why. I know it may be hard to get such a thing, but it beats an all out scuffle.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I frankly disagree with that notion, as it's one that's never been held up at all and has never served as a means to invalidate staff votes up until now. But, in the interest of keeping things moving...

@Theglassman12 @DarkDragonMedeus @Maverick_Zero_X Could you elaborate further on your stances on this thread, if possible?

 

[GarrixianXD]

Agree FRA.

 

[Reiner04]

I frankly disagree with that notion, as it's one that's never been held up at all and has never served as a means to invalidate staff votes up until now. But, in the interest of keeping things moving...

@Theglassman12 @DarkDragonMedeus @Maverick_Zero_X Could you elaborate further on your stances on this thread, if possible?

If it were me among those tagged, I would not have been least bit bothered beyond what I already have. Glassman read everything and thus gave his stance about not being convinced with the opposition regarding the topic. Why? For the reason provided, which he doesn't need to parrot. DDM was neutral in the beginning, and after a couple of argument exchanges, he agreed with 'possibly/likely'. Why? because there was already a great length of posts explaining why 'possibly/likely' can work. I myself proposed 'possibly/likely' just a couple of posts before DDM and he replied without a ping, which means he has been following the arguments and replied with what he sees fit for the topic. I won't say anything regarding Mav since he has only replied once and doesn't care further. They were tagged again; they said they haven't changed their stance. They didn't blindly agree to what was there. Those who disagree always had to provide reasons on why they do disagree; it's not something unbelievable or out of the ordinary; they're obligated to do so. But those who agree don't have any obligation as such beyond that they're convinced, and even then they waited and read both sides. I don't get what this 'Write an essay on why you agree within 300 lines' is, to be honest. One can argue more than another doesn't make them any better than one who argues less. One reads and gives their opinion; the other stays and chooses to convince another or just likes debate or that they're just more invested with the topic at hand due to either personal or whatever reason; we are in no one's mind to check their capability. And honestly, we have always treated votes of the same badges equally, even if it involves wiki-wide revisions. There was never such a thing as 'more knowledge = more value'; it's all down to badges.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Respectfully, it isn't you that's tagged, and all of the rules cited by DMUA are legitimate rules we do have in place. If it comes down to a stalemate, they would be used to determine the result of the CRT. Furthermore, going "by the badges", it would still result in a disagree: three administrators voted against whereas two administrators and one thread moderator voted in favor. As such, I don't see the need for the hostility or implications about DMUA's motives: even if left in its current state and not citing weird background rules that are rarely invoked, the votes of the thread currently favor his position.

 

[Reiner04]

Respectfully, it isn't you that's tagged, and all of the rules cited by DMUA are legitimate rules we do have in place. If it comes down to a stalemate, they would be used to determine the result of the CRT. Furthermore, going "by the badges", it would still result in a disagree: three administrators voted against whereas two administrators and one thread moderator voted in favor. As such, I don't see the need for the hostility or implications about DMUA's motives: even if left in its current state and not citing weird background rules that are rarely invoked, the votes of the thread currently favor his position.

Thank you. don't wish to, don't want to, don't need to, don't care to and would refuse to./jk hahaha

My apologies if my previous statement came across as hostile or implied bias on the part of DMUA or any such thing. It's possible that my English might have been the issue, or there could have been a misunderstanding, or perhaps I expressed my strong disagreement with what's happening in the wrong way. I know I am not one of those tagged, but that's where I chose to start expressing my thoughts from. It wasn't something new (for example: "this CRT is so messed up, I doubt any staff will visit, keep your threads clean or they won't be visited by staff and meh"). I didn't mean to speak on behalf of someone else, but I will keep in mind not to speak for the staff or anything related to them. What I wanted to say is merely that it's futile to weigh staff votes by making them write a paragraph and judging them alongside. Since if what I'm reading is the same as what everyone else is, staff votes of the same badges carry equal weight. Nothing can change it. That "maybe" alongside is not really a hard rule as far as I can read, and it won't invalidate one's vote or give more weightage to another. The Good judgment, less-good judgment is subjective; expertise in verse sure is not but i don't think tagging will make anyone expert suddenly. Disagreements need reasons, and those who agree within this CRT have given more than what is normally needed in my opinion. Given that my opinion holds no weight, it's not something to be mentioned, but still. If votes, as you said, are not equal, then either asking them to change the votes, as has been asked long ago, would be better, or asking more staff (I know it's difficult, but just in case) might be helpful enough. My disagreement was with the sudden current arguments regarding votes' weightage, since I believe the quality of judgment that has been given by other staff in this thread was no less than what is believed to be of "more quality." That said, my point isn't/wasn't in whose favor this thread is, as I know it just as much as anyone else does. My apologies again if what I said in my previous post wasn't well-structured to be regarded as a normal opinion on the subject. I didn't mean to reply considering I found it weird that I was hostile (unconsciously or smth idk, my way to say things might be an issue?) So I just thought it's better to stay away from this crt and idc eitherway but on second thought I might should clear up misunderstanding. I did tried as much as i can to write up in a way to not get misunderstood this time.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I think you're right in that it might be a matter of language. "May be" is not the same as "Maybe": in this case, the phrase is used to denote that it is possible to determine votes like that, rather than saying it is uncertain if one could do so. Regardless, it is fine: I just don't want bad blood with DMUA for something that is technically correct.

 

[Agnaa]

At this point I think we should remind ourselves of what Discussion Rules has laid out in precise detail.

I can't find a precise statement on it in the rules, but the impression I've always been under, and is implied here, is that the strength of arguments and reasoning for agreeing or disagreeing takes precedent over just a votecount. Otherwise we'd have instances of overt jury nullification through people just deciding to disagree or agree with something, which is something we want to avoid when deciding what statistics we put onto the site.

I disagree with this rule and dislike its application. I don't see it meaningfully avoiding a failure mode (as it changes "I agree FRA" to "I agree with X FRA" or "I agree with the argument about the sword FRA", which I don't view as meaningful improvements), while creating other failure modes (bias in when this metric gets wheeled out, and a bias towards arguments which are vapid and easy to refute but occupy a lot of words, due to them seeming more high-effort than their rebuttals).

With that said....

That is a lot of words for "I don't like that these people disagree with me ". It is absolutely insane to go "Glass' opinion means less because he said 'I guess', while Mav's opinion means more because she said she agreed with me specifically".

Also, why is Mav's vote considered good enough but Glass's isn't when they express the same sentiment, but for different sides? Does Glass need to specifically say "Curry makes sense to me" for it to be considered a 'good enough' vote? I find that ridiculous.

And not just that, but you are demonstrating a clear bias in how you count them, since despite Glass's and Mav's comments being the same in nature, you specifically choose to count Mav's that disagrees with the OP and not count Glass's that agrees with the OP. No, just saying "oh but Mav said who they're agreeing with so it's fine" isn't a valid excuse, as the nature of agreeing with the OP is that the OP's points make sense to that person - making these two responses dead-even in their content.

I view this responses as misrepresenting things. DMUA did not say that Mav's comment was good while Glass's wasn't, he said that Mav's was also bad, but was slightly better due to that added detail.

Honestly, not that great either, but they specifically reference who they're agreeing with and thus show an acknowledgement of the source of the arguments they side with.

Which I think is a fair reading if one were to try to apply those rules as written.

In addition, our Discussion Rules don't permit this sort of thing to begin with. Show me where it says you can invalidate staff votes for what you believe to be their reasons not being good enough.

you are trying to enforce this seemingly niche and kind of nonexistent rule to this thread. I'm sorry, but I can't really stand idly by and just not call it out, this is spite.

Curry's post here isn't as bad, but it still gets to a similarly false sentiment. That is a part of the rules; DMUA quoted it in his post. And, funnily enough, people have recently privately pushed for stronger enforcement of it (to not leak something people may not want me to, AKM, Ant, Damage, DDM, Grath, DT, Bambu, and Qawsed were in a conversation where encouraging staff members to provide more elaborate justifications was pushed, without much dissent from people other than me).

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

I want to note in one of Agnaa's response how it doesn't affect the area if it indeed absorbed that much amount of energy.

which the scans actually answered because Release recollection or Perfect Weapon Control art is about releasing and strengthening but prior to that
Magic in this verse is all about control or authority and what Kirito basically did was micromanage and control all these light particles.
Even the syntax and command for magic include manipulating properties and how these elements will act their shape etc. and Luminous and thermal elements are separate
i can go on more about the detail but this is my answer to Agnaa's concern about it not affecting the area around except the targetted minions.

one example of syntax even includes how the particles react is it meant to be just an attack or it is set into a parameter to counter thermal elements etc
there are also ways of release. which are burst or discharge where discharge is more on precise targeting while Burst is you get the idea

Generate cryogenic element. Form element, bird shape. Counter thermal object, discharge

furthermore what Kirito did here is more than just regular sacred art

also i agree with this thread

 

[Mr. Bambu]

to not leak something people may not want me to, AKM, Ant, Damage, DDM, Grath, DT, Bambu, and Qawsed

Dude just actually said he wasn't going to do it then did it anyways. Gonna have to send you to Janny Hell for that.

 

[CurrySenpai]

I want to note in one of Agnaa's response how it doesn't affect the area if it indeed absorbed that much amount of energy.

which the scans actually answered because Release recollection or Perfect Weapon Control art is about releasing and strengthening but prior to that
Magic in this verse is all about control or authority and what Kirito basically did was micromanage and control all these light particles.
Even the syntax and command for magic include manipulating properties and how these elements will act their shape etc. and Luminous and thermal elements are separate
i can go on more about the detail but this is my answer to Agnaa's concern about it not affecting the area around except the targetted minions.

one example of syntax even includes how the particles react is it meant to be just an attack or it is set into a parameter to counter thermal elements etc
there are also ways of release. which are burst or discharge where discharge is more on precise targeting while Burst is you get the idea

I forgot about all this lol

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah that whole affecting the area stuff stopped being relevant after I got given further context, which was a few posts in.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

Aight good to know I was only able to backread a few posts that were summarized cause it was a 7-page crt.

I have spent an hour backreading the entire thread.

Honestly, both side has valid reasoning but the problem is that going with one side invalidates some blatant things written by believing an interpretation that might undermine said scans and statements. while the other hinges a bit more on supposition which the other said claim might mean something else than general supporting knowledge considering the perspective of the character detailing the event.

in all honesty, this should fit the possibly rating and I would endorse the possibly rating over anything else as both sides risk undermining things or may outright disregard what may be a blatant statement. Hence I understand Griffin's position more.

Although I'm knowledgeable in SAO I would admit that I'm not too privy to very technical details such as the claim that "the Sun may not be developed yet as The seed or the system the world is based on does not create something unless necessary hence since there is no space travel yet the Solus at this time may not an actual Sun"
But in all honesty, the existence of Lunaria and waxing and waning would say otherwise as a "light source" would be on precise position and the revolution of said planets/moon to even allow such things to exist in the first place so I do believe the Existence of Solus as of this moment could as well be a Sun. Furthermore, if they use an artificial light source it wouldn't fully be an accurate simulation since their goal is to make artificial fluctlight to be soldiers cultivated like a baby simulating natural human growth in the natural world (unlike games born from The Seed who doesn't care about it)

So there's my opinion on that

still doesn't change that I vote for possibly rating like LordGriffin