Tier 1 Sailor Moon Discussion Rule?

[Maverick_Zero_X]

Sailor Moon: Tier 1 Corridor of Spacetime Door

The Corridor of Spacetime Door, an area in Sailor Moon, should count as a tier 1 structure based on our current standards. The Corridor of the Spacetime Door is a location in Sailor Moon where the Door of spacetime is located. It is referred to as the corridor, as the underworld, as a...

vsbattles.com

Sailor Moon Tier 1 Upgrade

The God Tiers of Sailor Moon should be 1-A via the Lambda Power or scaling to it. 1. The Corridor of Spacetime has no concept of distance or direction. Sailor Mercury, who can create Super Dimensional Structures with in-world math*, and can track people outside normal space axis, who are in...

vsbattles.com

Sailor Moon Tier 1 Upgrade (Reformatted)

Reformatting this arguments to be more streamlined. I have dropped some arguments as they did not work out. But the remaining two I believe work: 4Dimensional Space exists within the Sailor Moon Universe. 1. Sailor Mercury in the 1ast arc uses in-world math, to create a super dimensional...

vsbattles.com

And now: https://vsbattles.com/threads/sailor-moon-tier-one-the-ultimate-panacea.161779/
Basically, should we make a rule to not propose T1 SM without bringing new arguments to the table?

 

[KingNanaya]

forgot one

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

All these threads have new arguments! The last thread I posted has literally a brand new translation that even I have never seen before or posted. A new cosmology blog that I just created and for standards I have never argued for.

This is unwarranted and unacceptable abuse of power.

 

[Deagonx]

Well, this user is bringing new arguments to the table, they're just all not very good which is why it keeps getting rejected.

I am more inclined to think this user specifically should be told not to make Sailor Moon high tier upgrade threads anymore, given they are clearly going to try as many times as possible and aren't trying to view things objectively.

It's also been the case that this user is needlessly difficult and obstinate in discussions, not listening to any staff member who tells them when they're mistaken.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Well, this user is bringing new arguments to the table, they're just all not very good which is why it keeps getting rejected.

Prove it your claim

 

[Deagonx]

The three failed CRTs that precipitated your current one are proof enough.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Apologies! I missread that

 

[Deagonx]

Thats not proof they are all the same arguments.

I didn't say they were all the same argument. I explicitly said the opposite in the first comment I made:

Well, this user is bringing new arguments to the table, they're just all not very good

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

So a mod agrees that all the arguments aren’t the same. So what is the problem? Is there a rule that there is only a limited amount if upgrades a verse can try?

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

I didn't say they were all the same argument. I explicitly said the opposite in the first comment I made:

Yes, and I apologized. I miss read your post and deleted the comment.

 

[Deagonx]

So what is the problem?

I elaborated upon that in the first post I made here as well.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

t's also been the case that this user is needlessly difficult and obstinate in discussions, not listening to any staff member who tells them when they're mistaken.

i’m sorry? Now its wrong to disagree with staff members in a debate?

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Every Sailor Moon thread gets filled with trolls.

I am being accused and called names over not agreeing with the staff.

I have broken no rules. I have zero warnings. What is the purpose of this thread other than a witch hunt?

This is an abuse if power.

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

I can't be around for too long, but how about something roughly like this (I'm open to suggestions)?

Do not try to upgrade the Sailor Moon cosmology to Tier 1 using arguments regarding the Corridor of Space-Time or hyperspaces which have been rejected in past threads (such as this, this, this, this, and this). There is not enough evidence one could use to deduce that the hyperspaces are significantly large dimensional spaces that would meet the requirements for qualitative superiority. In addition, the Corridor of Space-Time is not significantly or insignificantly 5-D for containing alternate dimensions while being a timeless void. The dimensions it contains show no evidence of being spatiotemporally separate (unlike other universal dimensions within the verse), and the corridor as a whole is consistently characterized as a feature of a single space-time, with statements such as "the space-time void," "the edge of space-time," "the depths of space-time," and "another region in space-time" pertaining to it.

 

[FinePoint]

If they're new arguments each time, I don't see the point in creating a discussion rule banning the topic.
In addition, I don't think we should ban entire topics over the behavior of a single user either.
It would be preferable to just deal with that specific user instead.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

It would be preferable to just deal with that user instead.

Deal with the user? What rule did I break?

 

[FinePoint]

Deal with the user? What rule did I break?

My apologies, I did not mean to imply you broke any rules.
By "deal with" in this context, I meant make a rule violation report, where that claim could be properly investigated.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

My apologies, I did not mean to imply you broke any rules.
By "deal with" in this context, I meant make a rule violation report, where that claim could be properly investigated.

Lets make a rule to stop a user from making threads because i dont like his arguments is a gross abuse of power. The investigation should be on the mods pushing this.

 

[FinePoint]

Lets make a rule to stop a user from making threads because i dont like his arguments is a gross abuse of power. The investigation should be on the mods pushing this.

Once a report is made, both sides will naturally be considered, and if the report seems to be in bad faith, that would be investigated as well.
I doubt though that Maverick would do this with malice. There is more likely some kind of misunderstanding or simpler disagreement.

In any case, I would implore you to calm down and be patient.

Nothing has been decided on yet. This thread has not been approved, and you have not been punished nor officially ruled as having done anything wrong. We should wait for further input. If you believe you have done nothing wrong, then I'm certain people will recognize that when they join the discussion.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Once a report is made, both sides will naturally be considered, and if the report seems to be in bad faith, that would be investigated as well.
I doubt though that Maverick would do this with malice. There is more likely some kind of misunderstanding or simpler disagreement.

In any case, I would implore you to calm down and be patient.

Nothing has been decided on yet. This thread has not been approved, and you have not been punished nor officially ruled as having done anything wrong. We should wait for further input. If you believe you have done nothing wrong, then I'm certain people will recognize that when they join the discussion.

Alright! Thank you! I will follow your advice.

 

[Catzlaflame]

I have broken no rules. I have zero warnings. What is the purpose of this thread other than a witch hunt?

Nobody said you did.... what? This isn't the RVR so idk why you keep mentioning warnings and rules.

Besides, what is currently in the OP is a general proposal. Although, frankly, I tend to agree with Deagon. If it is a single user pumping out lots of low quality threads on the same topic, staff should probably focus more on the individual.

Also Idk how this is an "abuse of power," its literally basic moderation. If the consensus is that, even after four attempts at making a CRT on the same topic, the quality of the CRTs hasn't gone up... steps should be taken to prevent staff from needlessly evaluating any future CRTs that are also going to very likely be rejected due to poor arguments. Please do not think that this is people ganging up on you specifically... this has been the precedence with CRTs and with calculations.

And like bruv... "abuse of power" really? even from your perspective that should be an exagerration lol like.... its a battle boarding site not Ancient Rome.

@Maverick_Zero_X you should probably change this:

without bringing new arguments to the table?

 

[ImmortalDread]

If they're new arguments each time, I don't see the point in creating a discussion rule banning the topic.
In addition, I don't think we should ban entire topics over the behavior of a single user either.
It would be preferable to just deal with that specific user instead.

There is nothing new under the sun; all arguments, with recycled evidence, attempt to circumvent past rejections by masquerading as novel, despite the unchanged premise

I don't see the difference at all. I support the discussion rule.

 

[Lonkitt]

I agree with adding a discussion rule 100%

It’s getting very frustrating seeing the same proposals being put forward with little to zero change in the reasoning

 

[Planck69]

As much as I'd like a discussion rule, these are all different arguments. It'd be better to focus on the user making them.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Notify me when the investigation has started so I may address my argument, until then, I will be unfollowing and not responding.

 

[GarrixianXD]

I agree.

 

[Deagonx]

What should be done here? I believe we should likely close this as a discussion rule isn't really the best way to deal with this issue IMO, and pick up the RVR report discussion when possible.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

What should be done here? I believe we should likely close this as a discussion rule isn't really the best way to deal with this issue IMO, and pick up the RVR report discussion when possible.

Bump.

 

[Deagonx]

I'll close this, and if someone wants to pursue it further they can re-open it.