Sword Art Online General Discussion/Q&A Thread #4

[Kaantantr]

Why would you ban the usage of direct statements from the author himself? If we are banning statements made by the author on social media, we should pretty much ban the usage of anything the creator says outside of the products he officially publishes.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

.......
the downgrades used such tweets

So let me get this straight. The entire basis for the huge downgrades the verse has gotten recently comes from randomly asked (and specific) fan questions?

Something our site explicitly forbids, and even has written in our editing rules?

 

[Cyberblader90]

So let me get this straight. The entire basis for the huge downgrades the verse has gotten recently comes from randomly asked (and specific) fan questions?

Something our site explicitly forbids, and even has written in our editing rules?

not all, but a large chunk, yes

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Why would you ban the usage of direct statements from the author himself? If we are banning statements made by the author on social media, we should pretty much ban the usage of anything the creator says outside of the products he officially publishes.

Because social media comments made by authors are typically treated as unserious answers and deemed unreliable. Especially if their answers are towards specifically formed questions made by random fans and not people who's job it is to ask them questions (hence why things like actual interviews are acceptable forms of evidence and are exceptions).

 

[RitsuØ1]

So let me get this straight. The entire basis for the huge downgrades the verse has gotten recently comes from randomly asked (and specific) fan questions?

Yea. Pretty much.

 

[Cyberblader90]

you mean this?

 

[Kaantantr]

So let me get this straight. The entire basis for the huge downgrades the verse has gotten recently comes from randomly asked (and specific) fan questions?

Something our site explicitly forbids, and even has written in our editing rules?

No, the entire basis for the downgrades were the fact that people here have warped the reality so much to wank up Kirito's power, so my arguments were made strictly from the information from the books that people did not want to believe despite me explicitly citing things, so I brought Reki's personal statements as further reinforcements because people here religiously believed the old "interpretations" were correct and did not want to look back at the book.

And I recommend reading your own rules:

• Brief or vague answers to fan-questions via social media are also generally disregarded, whereas more elaborate explanations in serious interviews are usually considered more reliable.

Context is what matters. None of which that were used as reinforcement was "brief or vague", Reki gave very concise and explicit answers which were used. No tweets that utilized his generic vague statements were included in the citations, which is what the rule is referring to.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

you mean this?

Nah not that. The bullet point right above it actually.

Regarding direct information from the author/creator of a character: We do not use statements from them that are phrased in an uncertain, uncaring, and/or unspecific manner, such as "Could be", "Maybe", "Probably", "Possibly" etcetera. Brief or vague answers to fan-questions via social media are also generally disregarded, whereas more elaborate explanations in serious interviews are usually considered more reliable.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Basically, unless you can prove that the social media outlet in question is used specifically by the author to give serious answers about the series that it itself doesnt give, or if the answers come from online interviews, social media answers to fans are never acceptable forms of evidence here. (You can see any discussion with Ben 10/Alien X as a perfect example of this).

And I recommend reading your own rules:


Context is what matters. None of which that were used as reinforcement was "brief or vague", Reki gave very concise and explicit answers which were used. No tweets that utilized his generic vague statements were included in the citations, which is what the rule is referring to.

See above. It doesnt matter. The answers made in the first place are made to answer leading questions from fans to extract such information, which makes it easily possible that the answers are not serious.

 

[Kaantantr]

Do you read your own rules, before citing them to claim a previous change should be illegitimate? Because that rule literally invalidates what Problem is trying to say, while validates everything I used as a citation.

 

[Kaantantr]

It is literally trying to make a distinction between "vague" and "explicit" statements. You do not have a blanket rule that disallows social media. You have a rule that disallows things based on their context and language.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Do you read your own rules, before citing them to claim a previous change should be illegitimate? Because that rule literally invalidates what Problem is trying to say, while validates everything I used as a citation.

"Brief or vague answers to fan-questions via social media are also generally disregarded, whereas more elaborate explanations in serious interviews are usually considered more reliable."

Are these answers from an interview? Yes or no?

 

[RitsuØ1]

"Brief or vague answers to fan-questions via social media are also generally disregarded, whereas more elaborate explanations in serious interviews are usually considered more reliable."

Are these answers from an interview? Yes or no?

So basically... In-Verse Feats > Word of God? And no. It wasn't from an interview.

 

[Cyberblader90]

maybe ask an admin, like akm?

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

So basically... In-Verse Feats > Word of God?

Not quite. The point isn't that WoG isn't valid at all, the point is that out of series answers from authors made to answer specifically-leading questions from fans are deemed unusable evidence.

Unless the social media outlet is proven to be used to give serious answers (for example, Transformers author uses social media to give serious answers about the series and is confirmed to use it for that specifically) or if the answers come from actual interviews (where in an interview, its the fans job to ask questions about the show that the series itself doesnt answer).

 

[Kaantantr]

Interview: An interview is essentially a structured conversation where one participant asks questions, and the other provides answers.

So yes, if you are going to ignore the entire context of your rule and focus on what can qualify as an interview and what cannot, providing questions structured in numbered bullet points to receive answers does indeed qualify as an interview.

But again, your rule is about context. Social media answers are generally (meaning you do not have a blanket rule to disallow them and have to look at their context) not allowed because usually, they can be casual and vague answers. You have an entire sentence beforehand that tries to make this point clear to you. The tweet Problem is trying to use to wank Kirito up explicitly uses the language of possibilities and could be's, that is the exact kind of thing that is not allowed per your rules.

The tweets I have used are explicit and direct statements with 0 vagueness in them, they are direct and non-disputable statements from Reki himself. But go ahead, call a mod so we don't need to continue this for an entire week...

 

[Zencha9]

explicitly uses the language of possibilities and could be's, that is the exact kind of thing that is not allowed per your rules

there's a "possibly" rating that is based around this concept

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Interview: An interview is essentially a structured conversation where one participant asks questions, and the other provides answers.

So yes, if you are going to ignore the entire context of your rule and focus on what can qualify as an interview and what cannot, providing questions structured in numbered bullet points to receive answers does indeed qualify as an interview.

Don't be sarcastic and try and circumvent what I meant by "interview" because a random quick conversation on social media with a random schumk obviously doesnt qualify as that (and if your bent on thinking it does, good luck with changing the rules to consolidate that). Otherwise the rule wouldn't exist in the first place by this logic.

The point is that OFFICIAL interview conversations (you know, like on a blog or news site between the participant and the author who agrees with partaking in said conversation) and social media outlets proven to give officialized details and information about a series are the only exceptions we allow to this rule. Otherwise, it goes nowhere.

It being "bulleted out" doesn't at all mean it can't be counted as a brief explanation made to answer a leading question. You need better than that to get it acceptable.

But again, your rule is about context. Social media answers are generally (meaning you do not have a blanket rule to disallow them and have to look at their context) not allowed because usually, they can be casual and vague answers. You have an entire sentence beforehand that tries to make this point clear to you. The tweet Problem is trying to use to wank Kirito up explicitly uses the language of possibilities and could be's, that is the exact kind of thing that is not allowed per your rules.

Okay? Problems tweets wouldn't be allowed either and they arent some exception to the rule like the ones used to downgrade the verse aren't either.

The "context" involved to differentiate social media answers from either being serious or not is the validity of the source itself and whethee it can be taken seriously.

Validity that you havent provided for the answers used for the downgrade. And when these answers are made to answer leading questions, at the bare minimum, it makes them questionable.

The tweets I have used are explicit and direct statements with 0 vagueness in them

See above. A briefly vague bulleted answer is not enough to say beyond reasonable doubt that it's valid.

, they are direct and non-disputable statements from Reki himself. But go ahead, call a mod so we don't need to continue this for an entire week...

And see above.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Also my bad, for some reason I also responded to Zencha...

Anyways, I have work now. And for the record, I don't care if SAO is or actually isn't tier 4. My current problem is with the circumstances and method of how it was downgraded.

 

[Zencha9]

Also my bad, for some reason I also responded to Zencha...

Anyways, I have work now. And for the record, I don't care if SAO is or actually isn't tier 4. My current problem is with the circumstances and method of how it was downgraded.

oh i thought it was a problem on my end lol , yeah don't worry about it

 

[RitsuØ1]

Anyways, I have work now. And for the record, I don't care if SAO is or actually isn't tier 4. My current problem is with the circumstances and method of how it was downgraded.

So what happens now?

 

[DMUA]

So let me get this straight. The entire basis for the huge downgrades the verse has gotten recently comes from randomly asked (and specific) fan questions?

Something our site explicitly forbids, and even has written in our editing rules?

There's no proof that the person who asked was from VSBW, and at that, the basis of the downgrades were the fact that the feats were clearly hyperbolic/misinterpreted wholesale, and the twitter statements just supported that suggestion as such.

 

[RitsuØ1]

There's no proof that the person who asked was from VSBW, and at that, the basis of the downgrades were the fact that the feats were clearly hyperbolic/misinterpreted wholesale, and the twitter statements just supported that suggestion as such.

The user who asked the fan demanding questions was banned from VSBW

 

[Kaantantr]

That is yet another tangent that does not listen to what was explained specifically related to this topic.

Are there really people out there so desperate to try to rank up their fictional character so it can beat other fictional characters that they completely ignore everything that's being explained to them and hold onto cherry picked words to apply their headcanon?

Everything is explained in the books. Whether you interpret the rules correctly or not to disallow twitter statements, the entire citations from the books remain just the same which is the basis of all the downgrades. I keep staying back to gradually fix things over time instead of aggressively correcting misinformation, coming into threads with good faith that there may be a good discussion, but everytime it is an attempt at a baseless wank, or trying to revert changes made through direct citations and elaborate explanations. Sometimes I feel like it would all be better if I just continued in private with AKM or Antvasima and solve all the incorrect misinformation without having to deal with any of this. Either way, I am at a point where I'm just gonna say "It's not you who decides, it's the reviewers that check the citations". And since all my arguments are cemented in the books anyways, with tweets only being additional explicit and elaborate statements from the author, there will not be any issues anyways.

Don't be sarcastic and try and circumvent what I meant by "interview" because a random quick conversation on social media with a random schumk obviously doesnt qualify as that (and if your bent on thinking it does, good luck with changing the rules to consolidate that). Otherwise the rule wouldn't exist in the first place by this logic.

That is exactly what I am going to do, if you are trying to circumvent the rules by trying to apply a blanket social media ban.

The point is that OFFICIAL interview conversations (you know, like on a blog or news site between the participant and the author who agrees with partaking in said conversation) and social media outlets proven to give officialized details and information about a series are the only exceptions we allow to this rule. Otherwise, it goes nowhere.

Tweets made by Reki are his main official source of communication. You will not get anything more official than that. No editorial that causes lacking context to fit time or page span, no need for diluted topics because an "official interview" needs to cover a variety of things... Reki is literally tasked with explaining his books, stories and anime specifically on twitter after they get released. That is part of his job. So yes, Reki has been proven to give officialized details and information about a series on his twitter.

It being "bulleted out" doesn't at all mean it can't be counted as a brief explanation made to answer a leading question. You need better than that to get it acceptable.

You need to get better than whatever it is you have been doing so far to apply a blanket twitter ban. None of your rules state social media is banned. It states "based on context, it is generally banned".

Okay? Problems tweets wouldn't be allowed either and they arent some exception to the rule like the ones used to downgrade the verse aren't either.

I am not here to disallow someones arguments specifically. I don't care if Problem's tweet is allowed or not. What matter is its context. Whether it is an explicit statement, or whether it is a vague idea with no conclusion. The medium for it doesn't matter. And your rules state as such.

The "context" involved to differentiate social media answers from either being serious or not is the validity of the source itself and whethee it can be taken seriously.

See above. Twitter is Reki's main source of communication for clarifications regarding his stories.

Validity that you havent provided for the answers used for the downgrade. And when these answers are made to answer leading questions, at the bare minimum, it makes them questionable.

I have. That's why I have pages upon pages of citations straight from the books.

None of these are leading questions. They are concise, singular questions that the author replies with explicit (it means non-vague if you haven't realized) and extensive answers with a lot of details.

 

[Kaantantr]

The user who asked the fan demanding questions was banned from VSBW

Why does this matter? Is it the fan that is answering the questions? Did the fan coerce Reki into giving a specific answer? For all we know, you did coerce people to get others banned just because they did not think the way you do.

See, ad-hominem is easy. You say something completely irrelevant to the situation in an attempt to turn things around and hope people do not realize.

 

[DMUA]

You need to get better than whatever it is you have been doing so far to apply a blanket twitter ban. None of your rules state social media is banned. It states "based on context, it is generally banned".

Social Media is used all the time on this site, it's just, if people deliberately try to force answers we entirely disregard that, and strongly discourage it as it's pretty much just harassment. And it shouldn't be used if it blatantly contradicts the source material.

Neither is present here unless you blow the situation dramatically out of proportion.

 

[AKM sama]

I was called here because "it is getting out of hand". I don't have the time to look into the thread atm because I am busy so all I'm going to say is that everybody should calm down and behave properly. Thank you. (I will come back later.)

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

There's no proof that the person who asked was from VSBW, and at that, the basis of the downgrades were the fact that the feats were clearly hyperbolic/misinterpreted wholesale, and the twitter statements just supported that suggestion as such.

The person doesn't need to be from our site whatsoever

 

[DMUA]

Okay so apparently our rules are supposed to apply to every single person on the internet, or every person interested in VS Debating?

That's an absurdity. We cannot control what people outside of our community do.

Even if the questions are specific here, they aren't exactly forcing an answer, they're just asking a question and they don't bother them again. There's nothing wrong with doing that. There isn't a reason to get uppity about this.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

It literally doesn't matter who or where the question is being asked DMUA as it doesn't change the actual sentiment that it's a leading question that's forcing an answer for specific info.

That's literally like saying if someone on Reddit asked an author a vs debating related question, or question about feats, the answer they get counts because the person who asked it isn't from vs battle wikia.

 

[Kaantantr]

I don't think you understand the meaning of "forcing an answer".

Forcing an answer means you are manipulating the person to give a specific answer you want.

"Could you explain how this works" or "Could you explain what this is" is not "forcing an answer", it's simply asking a question.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Yes and its a leading question hounding the author for the specific info. That's forcing an answer out of them with the intent to extract specific information. And we ban that.

Going back to work, so I'll talk on this more later, but again, we ban that. And if you want it changed, get a thread in to change it. Otherwise it stands.

 

[Cyberblader90]

guys just make this a question thread or something

 

[DMUA]

How long will your job take?

Is asking that genuine and simple question to see how long it'll take for you to get back an act of blatant manipulation, extorting information out of you?

No, it's just a question.

No one on the site treats it that way. I have not seen a single thread where someone pulled out a twitter quote and everyone flipped their lid because the writer was clearly being manipulated into giving a specific answer, unless they were indeed actually actively manipulated to give such a response.

Sure, there are plenty of instances of denying such statements but they have their own rationales as opposed to something this extreme.

 

[Cyberblader90]

i can only think of maybe Kamiya, though that is a whole can of worms

 

[DMUA]

Kamiya is more an instance of the writer in question blatantly trolling people who constantly hound him over VS questions, with responses like "ask your mom" "ask Mundus" and yadayada, until he just blew up and said "STOP ASKING ME ABOUT THIS STUFF"

which is indeed an instance of WoG being unreliable, and a far cry from Reki's situation where he is calmly responding to simple questions, even if a bit specific. It's not like such a thing is pressurizing him to course correct dramatically, otherwise he wouldn't be responding in things like "It might be possible" to certain parts of what he's being asked

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

How long will your job take?

Is asking that genuine and simple question to see how long it'll take for you to get back an act of blatant manipulation, extorting information out of you?

No, it's just a question.

No one on the site treats it that way. I have not seen a single thread where someone pulled out a twitter quote and everyone flipped their lid because the writer was clearly being manipulated into giving a specific answer, unless they were indeed actually actively manipulated to give such a response.

Sure, there are plenty of instances of denying such statements but they have their own rationales as opposed to something this extreme.

Ben 10 threads with Alien X would like a word with you sir.

Anyway. Ttyl on this.

 

[DMUA]

I suppose I should have corrected myself and said "any reasonable thread"

Wasn't the Alien X issue more that the WoG was not only clearly targetted but also just, doesn't make sense, like

Ending the multiverse in 6 thoughts, sort of "huh?"

 

[Cyberblader90]

i was checking this calc out. Curious, would it be affected by it being close to dusk when this occurs

Sword Art Online: It's not 4-B but it is pretty impressive actually

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[DMUA]

It would probably lower it but also I'm not really sure how to find out how much, and it likely wouldn't be very significant anyways

At that I'm pretty sure the dark realm is just, at that level of light at all times throughout the day