Removal of a Bleach Discussion Rule

[Arc7Kuroi]

Introduction
I'm going to propose the removal of the following Bleach discussion rule.

Do not create discussion threads trying to upgrade Yhwach to 3-A or Low 2-C for attempting to destroy the Soul Society and the Living World until new canon information is released. These terms have been accepted to refer to the planets in said context, and the topic has been extensively discussed many times.

Removal Justification
So, the discussion is predicated on the assertion that the realms (Soul Society and Living World) refer to planets. However, that is provably false and I'll explain why.

Raws: 現世と尸魂界を星と喩えるならば、その星同士を結ぶパイプラインが「断界」であり、それら全てを取り巻く宇宙空間にあたるものが「黒腔」と呼ばれている。
VIZ: If the world of the living and the Soul Society could be liked to planets and the pipeline that connected them were Dangai, the void of space that surrounded those was called Garganta.
Arc7: Figuratively speaking, if the world of the living and the Soul Society were planets, the pipeline linking the fellow planets would be the Dangai, and the outer space surrounding everything is called the Garganta.

喩える (tatoeru) is a a verb that is used to compare something. However, it has multiple different root kanji that indicate whether the comparison if metaphorical or literal. For example, this kanji 例 is used when comparing something using similar examples, aka literal. Meanwhile, the kanji used in the statement in CFYOW 喩 is used when drawing a metaphorical comparison, aka figurative. If you can't take my word or the citations from Jisho, I also triple checked this on r/translate and they corroborated my claims.

All of this means that when the realms are likened to planets it is inherently non-literal and purely figurative. This is significant because in the original thread that asserted the realms are strictly planets, they dismissed the VIZ translation by saying the comparison could be literal. However, that has been proven false, therefore this discussion rule should be removed due to it be based upon false premises.

Conclusion
This discussion rule needs to be removed for the above reasons that it is predicated on a false premise. As this discussion is solely related to removing the discussion rule, please refrain from turning this into a "Bleach is universal" thread, because no this does not mean Bleach is inherently universal again.

Agree: spooKT, ghouLT, dooMaverick, deviLG, DemonGodMitch (name is already spooky)
Neutral:
Disagree: spookeDamage, aaaaaaaAKM

 

[The_Alxhemist]

This gon be good.

Following

 

[Dalesean027]

Interested to see where this goes hopefully yeah it doesn't devolve into universal bleach where things have gotten hectic in the past and out of respect for you asking for not to be that

Anyways following and seems fine at a glance I'll need to read more

 

[KingTempest]

This is fine then

 

[Purgy]

Agree, was always a stupid rule to begin with tbh

 

[LordTracer]

Tis fine

 

[Deceived3596]

AKM and Damage FRA

Jk Agree FRA

spooK

Don't urban dictionary that word.

 

[Damage3245]

Do you want the discussion rule completely removed or just reworded to more accurate terms if the issue is that the wrong terms are being used?

Because somehow I get the feeling that this is just setup for "And now Bleach is Universal again."

How about it be reworded to:

• Do not create discussion threads trying to upgrade Yhwach to 3-A or Low 2-C for attempting to destroy the Soul Society and the Living World until new canon information is released. It has been decided that there isn't sufficient evidence that Yhwach would destroy the entire Universe with his power, and the topic has been extensively discussed many times.

 

[The_Alxhemist]

Agreed this looks fine after reading through.

 

[Deceived3596]

Do you want the discussion rule completely removed or just reworded to more accurate terms if the issue is that the wrong terms are being used?

I'm going to propose the removal of the following Bleach discussion rule.

This discussion rule needs to be removed for the above reasons that it is predicated on a false premise

 

[ImmortalDread]

Do you want the discussion rule completely removed or just reworded to more accurate terms if the issue is that the wrong terms are being used?

Because somehow I get the feeling that this is just setup for "And now Bleach is Universal again."

If he got new shreds of evidence and stuff, I don't see the reason for keeping the discussion rule. And I trust that OP has new plans for it.
Particularly, he already clarified that the terms that the wiki is using are false. I don't see how rewording it would solve it. Removing would be a better solution.

(Of course, with all due respect to you, Damage, I am not here offending nor intending to do it)

 

[Damage3245]

@Deceived; I know; just proposing an alternative.

 

[The_Alxhemist]

Do you want the discussion rule completely removed or just reworded to more accurate terms if the issue is that the wrong terms are being used?

Well yes since the reasoning behind the rule is faulty it should be removed.

Because somehow I get the feeling that this is just setup for "And now Bleach is Universal again."

How about it be reworded to:

• Do not create discussion threads trying to upgrade Yhwach to 3-A or Low 2-C for attempting to destroy the Soul Society and the Living World until new canon information is released. It has been decided that there isn't sufficient evidence that Yhwach would destroy the entire Universe with his power, and the topic has been extensively discussed many times.

This seems fine and better honestly. Better to put a ban since the anime is going to cover it all now.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Do you want the discussion rule completely removed or just reworded to more accurate terms if the issue is that the wrong terms are being used?

Because somehow I get the feeling that this is just setup for "And now Bleach is Universal again."

It should straight up be removed. There's no good reason for this rule to remain. I don't really see how your second comment is relevant at all to this thread, and frankly it sounds like you wanting to disagree with this thread if it opens the door for Bleach to reach 3-A/Low 2-C ratings again on this site. I specifically don't want this thread to devolve into this kind of Bleach uni discussion, so please respect that wish as it is derailment to the purpose of this thread.

I disagree with your new proposal too, in terms of major back and forths on the topic there have been like 2. My original upgrade, the downgrade where I got banned, the second upgrade that came from the MoN 3-C feat, the second downgrade that came from the removal of that feat. So, to claim it's been discussed to death is highly disingenuous.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Also, I forget to share my opinion on this, I agree with the removal of this discussion rule. The OP has introduced the definition of said terms.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

If you're worried about randos and off site goons spamming upgrades, they can just be specifically topic/thread banned. No reason to provide a blanket ban via discussion rule.

 

[Damage3245]

It should straight up be removed. There's no good reason for this rule to remain.

Waiting for new information so we don't end up having the same discussion all over again sounds like a good reason to me.

I don't really see how your second comment is relevant at all to this thread, and frankly it sounds like you wanting to disagree with this thread if it opens the door for Bleach to reach 3-A/Low 2-C ratings again on this site.

Are you saying that this isn't your intention at all?

I disagree with your new proposal too, in terms of major back and forths on the topic there have been like 2. My original upgrade, the downgrade where I got banned, the second upgrade that came from the MoN 3-C feat, the second downgrade that came from the removal of that feat. So, to claim it's been discussed to death is highly disingenuous.

That's at least 4 discussions on it? That's a big amount for one topic and without new information, it's going to be yet another controversial discussion.

It's perfectly reasonable not to want rejected proposals to keep cropping up year after year so that staff have to keep addressing them over and over.

 

[The_Alxhemist]

While I don't think Arc has any ulterior motive to removing the discussion rule. The rule is still wrong and should either be outright removed or reworded to prevent Uni tier CRTs which we all know is bound to posted if this gets removed.

Damage's suggestion to ban until additional information gets released isn't so bad, since we know Kubo is adding extra detail to the anime it's only a matter of time before anime canon content corroborates the Uni tier scaling if it's indeed accurate. That is a fairly better option than a recurrence of upgrades and downgrades Bleach has been through

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Waiting for new information so we don't end up having the same discussion all over again sounds like a good reason to me.

For a topic that has been discussed back and forth majorly only twice, no. You disliking the topic is by no means good reason.

Are you saying that this isn't your intention at all?

I have so many other Bleach revisions I want to get to before I even think about the topic of uni Bleach again. Whether you believe it or not, I do not have some secret third uni Bleach thread waiting for this thread to end lol. Let's say I did have a plan, I wouldn't even be able to promise a maybe appearance for like a year. Regardless, I don't have any solid intention or plan for it atm at all, not that my intention here matters.

That's at least 4 discussions on it? That's a big amount for one topic and without new information, it's going to be yet another controversial discussion.

It's perfectly reasonable not to want rejected proposals to keep cropping up year after year so that staff have to keep addressing them over and over.

That is 100% not a large amount for one topic, one topic mind you that hasn't been talked about for like a year. The fact that I just provided new information about the topic in my OP debunks the notion that new information doesn't exist either. There exists some interview/mini databook statements that I've been slowly translating that haven't been discussed yet either, so there not being new info is just false. If every argument had been exhausted I wouldn't bother being here.

Again, I'll have you know the last "debunk" was majorly predicated on a false premise anyhow, so I fail to see how "but we debunked the arguments with misinformation" equates to concretely debunking the same info year after year.

 

[Damage3245]

Also, something to point out; the discussion rule doesn't say "The terms Soul Society and Living World always refer to them as planets".

It says;

These terms have been accepted to refer to the planets in said context,

The issue being when Yhwach said he was going to destroy them, it wasn't said that he would destroy the realms themselves with his attack when it was shown that his power was only targetting the planet around him.

That's a part of the rule that is relevant here. Saying that in a different part of the manga the terms were used to refer to the realms isn't part of what is worded in the rule.

 

[ZoroNotZolo]

Common Arc W

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Also, something to point out; the discussion rule doesn't say "The terms Soul Society and Living World always refer to them as planets".

It says;



The issue being when Yhwach said he was going to destroy them, it wasn't said that he would destroy the realms themselves with his attack when it was shown that his power was only targetting the planet around him.

That's a part of the rule that is relevant here. Saying that in a different part of the manga the terms were used to refer to the realms isn't part of what is worded in the rule.

Yhwach only targeting the planets is objectively false. Don't be dishonest. We have multiple statements stating he's going to be targeting all the realms. The only reason we only see it near Seireitei/on the planet is because that's where the battle is being fought. By no means is that assertion proof that said context indicates planet. And that is still wrong, in the OP I prove with raws that the realms cannot be planets. That's why the discussion rule is wrong.

"If the world of the living and the Soul Society could be liked to planets"

"If X could be Y"

"If"

Meaning it isn't, since it is purely a figurative comparison as proven by the raws.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Common Arc W

As always ^^

 

[Damage3245]

Yhwach only targeting the planets is objectively false. Don't be dishonest. We have multiple statements stating he's going to be targeting all the realms. The only reason we only see it near Seireitei/on the planet is because that's where the battle is being fought. By no means is that assertion proof that said context indicates planet. And that is still wrong, in the OP I prove with raws that the realms cannot be planets. That's why the discussion rule is wrong.

"If the world of the living and the Soul Society could be liked to planets"

"If X could be Y"

"If"

Meaning it isn't, since it is purely a figurative comparison as proven by the raws.

That statement in the OP doesn't prove that they can't be used to refer to the planets as well; it's a figurative statement for the realms in that context, yes. But the terms have more than just one meaning.

See here for example of another case where the term isn't being applied to the whole realm.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

That statement in the OP doesn't prove that they can't be used to refer to the planets as well; it's a figurative statement for the realms in that context, yes. But the terms have more than just one meaning.

No that statement is describing the realms broadly. That statement comes from describing and defining the cosmology. So yes it does inherently mean they aren't planets. It's a narrator statement that is defining the cosmology to the reader.

 

[Damage3245]

No that statement is describing the realms broadly. That statement comes from describing and defining the cosmology. So yes it does inherently mean they aren't planets. It's a narrator statement that is defining the cosmology to the reader.

In that context, yes. Not for every other usage of the terms. Posted an example just above of where it clearly isn't referring to the entire realm.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

See here for example of another case where the term isn't being applied to the whole realm.

You can't prove that whatsoever. No where in that statement does it distinguish what SS means. "But we only scale Yama to High 6-A" isn't indicative of what that term is defined by either btw. Also, this statement has nothing to do with Yhwach/Reio at all.

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

This is fine

 

[ImmortalDread]

I think 3 staff members have agreed at far. Can this be implemented tho?

 

[Damage3245]

I think 3 staff members have agreed at far. Can this be implemented tho?

You want it applied after 50 minutes of discussion?

Is that a record for rushing a CRT?

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

I think 3 staff members have agreed at far. Can this be implemented tho?

Calm down buster lol

 

[Dalesean027]

Gotta at least let damage finishing airing out his concerns and questions

 

[Deceived3596]

Dread FRA

 

[Damage3245]

What the OP appears to be asserting is that the terms "Soul Society" and "World of the Living" can never be used, in any other context, to refer to anything other the the realms / "Universes" themselves.

Which is the part I'm disagreeing with.

One statement from the novel, speaking figuratively about the realms specifically, does not rule out the terms being used differently elsewhere in the manga itself.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

What the OP appears to be asserting is that the terms "Soul Society" and "World of the Living" can never be used, in any other context, to refer to anything other the the realms / "Universes" themselves.

Which is the part I'm disagreeing with.

One statement from the novel, speaking figuratively about the realms specifically, does not rule out the terms being used differently elsewhere in the manga itself.

Now hold on, I never said the realms are inherently universes either. Don't strawman. I never even proposed a quantification for their size at all here.

I'm stating that the realms being planets is incorrect as per the objective description of the realms. Which will always supercede your subjective interpretation of context.

 

[Damage3245]

Now hold on, I never said the realms are inherently universes either. Don't strawman. I never even proposed a quantification for their size at all here.

I'm stating that the realms being planets is incorrect as per the objective description of the realms. Which will always supercede your subjective interpretation of context.

My bad, didn't mean to strawman, just had a wrong interpretation of what you meant by "realms".

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

My bad, didn't mean to strawman, just had a wrong interpretation of what you meant by "realms".

Realms, by our wiki standards iirc, have no inherent size. That would be best suited for some kind of cosmology blog for the future.

 

[ImmortalDread]

You want it applied after 50 minutes of discussion?

Is that a record for rushing a CRT?

The OP did not address any controversial request. It was unequivocal that 3 staff members have been agreed as far.
(damn 3 staff agreements in less than one hour, you could count that as a world record in a wiki)

So, I don't think this is rushing, rather it seems an unambiguous request.

 

[Damage3245]

The OP did not address any controversial request. It was unequivocal that 3 staff members have been agreed as far.
(damn 3 staff agreements in less than one hour, you could count that as a world record in a wiki)

So, I don't think this is rushing, rather it seems an unambiguous request.

3 agreements and 1 disagreement; and no, 3 agreements in less than an hour is hardly a record on the wiki.

Getting a CRT applied in less than an hour, when it is usually best to wait several hours at least considering time zone differences for some users, is absolutely rushing.

If this CRT had been made just a few hours from now, you would have rushed it and closed it all while I was asleep. That's why I took issue with your unambiguous request.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

I'm not closing this thread yet, so no need to talk about closing it rn.