- 320
- 234
- Thread starter
- #121
Well no ant didnt cast a vote, and he knows nothing about the verse anywaysHigh 3-A still has one vote for and probably 2 against given Ant's comment.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well no ant didnt cast a vote, and he knows nothing about the verse anywaysHigh 3-A still has one vote for and probably 2 against given Ant's comment.
Well no ant didnt cast a vote,
He literally agreed to just give range.Yes, range seems better for such a vague concept.
Totally irrelevant, several staff members vote practically every day on verses in which they have little or no knowledge of the subject they have watched or read.and he knows nothing about the verse anyways
Being range while having potency isn't mutually exclusiveHe literally agreed to just give range.
Totally irrelevant, several staff members vote practically every day on verses in which they have little or no knowledge of the subject they have watched or read.
Regardless, Ant clearly agreed with just Range.Being range while having potency isn't mutually exclusive
False equivalence.Moreover, Its a very ignorant view to dispute evidence simply because of moderator status.
For example, If a character is shown to control water, but a staff says thats fire manipulation, it should not get passed simply because they have a higher status when they've been proven incorrect. (This example is super extreme and unreleastic, but it illustrates my point)
And what does it matter? If they're only voting for "range", they're only voting for that.Being range while having potency isn't mutually exclusive
The attack is also tearing space, you're just removing the actual potency from the attackRegardless, Ant clearly agreed with just Range.
So what if the mod states that they'll abuse their powers just to not get a thread passed? Does it still pass then?False equivalence.
They are in administrator and bureaucrat positions because, in addition to knowing how to argue, they know the rules of the site and what kind of feat fits into what, that's why they are ADMs/Bureaucrats.
And before anyone says "authority fallacy", this site literally stands on it considering that only team votes count in crts.
And what does it matter? If they're only voting for "range", they're only voting for that.
And so if you think that, you talk to RH.So what if the mod states that they'll abuse their powers just to not get a thread passed? Does it still pass then?
Id much rather everyone's vote be treated equally instead of creating a big fiasco out of itAnd so if you think that, you talk to RH.
Then change the site rules, because only staff votes have voting power (and not all of the staff, poor content moderators and the calculation group).Id much rather everyone's vote be treated equally instead of creating a big fiasco out of it
Alright.Then change the site rules, because only staff votes have voting power (and not all of the staff, poor content moderators and the calculation group).
Because whether they destroy the realm its entirety or just create a tear in it is up in the air.I don’t understand why this only applies to range. It’s not as though the corruption travelled like some gradual process, despite that it still qualifies because it would’ve travelled an inifinite area. Still I see that it affected the mind all at once with a blast.
If the corruption is destructive, then it should not be limited to range based on arbitrary reasoning. Is there anyone willing to state why destroying an area is limited to range and not Attack potency?
Its not up in the air, and even if that was the case, it still tore the space of hundreds of infinite spaces (it wasnt a singular tear because garnet did not say "a tear"), which qualifies for high 3-A.Because whether they destroy the realm its entirety or just create a tear in it is up in the air.
Because whether they destroy the realm its entirety or just create a tear in it is up in the air.
Possibly
Should be used to list a statistic for a character with some basis, but inconclusive due to the justification being vague or non-definitive. The probability of the justification in question for being reliable should be notable, but mild. This term should be used sparingly.
Yes, range seems better for such a vague concept.
Looks goodI suppose that "possibly/likely High 3-A via corruption" might be an acceptable compromise solution.