Hello. I would like to report an abuse on the discussion rules. This is not a serious offense, nor do I plan to portray it as such, but these rules are to be reinforced as they guarantee fairness for a otherwise overwhelming majority that might be biased. Please do pay attention.
Based on these following
general rules:
- Content Revision Threads need to be supported by scans, quotes, video clips, accepted calculations, or any other direct proof that claimed events actually happened in the source material. In the absence of this evidence, CRTs may be closed without notice.
- To reiterate, when creating content revision threads, it is best to keep your suggestions as structured and simple to understand as possible, so the staff will have an easier time evaluating the text. Avoid writing upgrade threads mainly based on assumptions from a limited amount of information, with no additional context or evidence to support them.
Please read it carefully. These rules are breached. You do not need to be knowledgeable on the verse of Undertale, I will explain things fairly throughly.
The situation is as it follows;
@StrymULTRA made a content revision thread on Undertale, where they give a list of new additions for the character, Hax, tiers, etc. And a great portion of them is backed up by a great deal of evidence.
The problems arrives when Ultra proposes the upgrade of the
Regeneration hax for the character Frisk. They propose the Mid Godly level for the character. Let me read what it requires.
Mid-Godly: The ability to regenerate from the complete erasure of body, mind, and soul.
On the original post of the CRT, Ultra provides no instance or indication that Frisk's body, soul or mind is being completely erased. Through the entire game, on fights, or any example where the character Frisk dies, we play from a first-person point of view, so in no situation, do we ever have any information on what's the state of the body when death arrives to the player who controls the character.
I asked for the original post, Ultra, evidence or any support for them to assume the body is completely destroyed from existence. They refused to, and stated they will still add it if it gets enough agreements regardless of this contradiction I've pointed out.
The game does show the state of the soul as the player dies.
The soul shatters in pieces. As you can see, this also does not classify as "complete erasure". This is the only way the soul breaks when the death animation plays.
I have asked for evidence or support on Frisk's soul suffering this kind of damage, complete erasure, they keep referring to the instance of the soul shattering which does not satisfy the requirement.
They refuse to give a valid instance, and keep pretending that the animation above is enough.
Again they insist that they will add the hax to the profiles if it gets enough agreement even after I present the logical contradiction because the majority, including one staff who is a supporter, are on par with them!
This is again the appeal to majority that the discussion rules try to prevent.
Finally, when it comes to the mind, the major problem comes around. The mind, the consciousness of the character Frisk is never harmed during the game.
In fact, they are able to resurrect after they die and make conscious decisions after death and the destruction of their soul. This is what's currently accepted on the profile.
Please refer to the regeneration page:
Low-Godly: The ability to regenerate from the complete physical destruction of the user's body,
instead restoring it from their disembodied consciousness, whether that be their soul,
mind, some other nonphysical aspect of themself, esoteric or metaphysical energy, or something else.
This limits the max capability of Frisk's regeneration to "Low Godly", I again ask Ultra that they have to prove Frisk's mind is completely erased from existence!
They just said they disagree that regenerating through the mind is Low Godly regeneration despite the description on our official pages.
Then they just walk through the contradictions and say
they will add it anyway.
This is unreasonable doubt coming from them.
This breaches the rules on indexing information without meeting the requirements for it. I'd like for anyone to possibly inform Ultra of this rule, and reinforce that adding information that has objective lack of evidence is against the rules.
I cannot fight the majority as Ultra produces behaviors that are similar to stonewalling. They are stonewalling the opposition.
