Tier 5 Revision

[Epyriel]

Granted, Brown Dwarf itself is scarcely used itself outside of very specific discussions about them, so I find them all to be valid. Of the two you mentioned, I think hyperjovan works better than planetar simply because it is more distinct than the other planet tiers.

Brown dwarfs are commonly referred to in astronomy circles.

However even most astrophysicists will never have heard of a ‘hyperjovian’ or ‘planetar’.

If we want a name that actually has some usage outside the site and that will be recognized and given context by those familiar with the relavent subject, we should use ‘brown dwarf’ as it is really the only option.

 

[Chritin]

Brown dwarfs are commonly referred to in astronomy circles.

However even most astrophysicists will never have heard of a ‘hyperjovian’ or ‘planetar’.

If we want a name that actually has some usage outside the site and that will be recognized and given context by those familiar with the relavent subject, we should use ‘brown dwarf’ as it is really the only option.

Fair, I just meant that they are all esoteric in nature.

 

[CloverDragon03]

This has already been discussed exhaustively to death. "Brown Dwarf" is by far the most scientifically accurate and logical term available, and these weak attempts to belittle it as weird, awkward-sounding, or anything of the sort have never been helpful. I would implore everyone to stop throwing such unnecessary roadblocks in the way of such a simple accuracy change.

And I'd like to ask you to keep the passive-aggression down. Everyone's allowed to provide their takes on the matter, and basically going "stop giving this opinion I don't like" is ridiculous. It's completely counterintuitive to the nature of a debate.

 

[Shadyboi0]

Brown Dwarf sounds cool

 

[Antvasima]

@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath @Dereck03

Your input would be very appreciated here.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath @Dereck03

Your input would be very appreciated here.

I think I gave my thoughts already. I'm fine with the change if it's the more accurate term.

 

[GarrixianXD]

DT makes the most sense to me.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

And I'd like to ask you to keep the passive-aggression down. Everyone's allowed to provide their takes on the matter, and basically going "stop giving this opinion I don't like" is ridiculous. It's completely counterintuitive to the nature of a debate.

It is not remotely ridiculous. This discussion has been drawn out long enough, and people using these pointless jabs to get in the way of such a simple accuracy change wastes time that could be spent on more useful projects.

 

[GarrixianXD]

It is not remotely ridiculous. This discussion has been drawn out long enough, and people using these pointless jabs to get in the way of such a simple accuracy change wastes time that could be spent on more useful projects.

Well, you have people who disagree here including myself hence it isn't "pointless" nor "simple".

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Well, you have people who disagree here including myself hence it isn't "pointless" nor "simple".

A jab that fails to amount to constructive disagreement is pointless, and disagreements that impede a very blatantly needed accuracy change purely on grounds of it not sounding good and the like don't preclude it from being simple.

 

[GarrixianXD]

A jab that fails to amount to constructive disagreement is pointless, and disagreements that impede a very blatantly needed accuracy change purely on grounds of it not sounding good and the like don't preclude it from being simple.

Or perhaps you should consider being more open to other people's propositions rather than deeming it as "a jab that fails to amount to constructive disagreement", and adamantly think this should undoubtedly pass. Like said before, a lot of effort for a little gain.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Or perhaps you should consider being more open to other people's propositions rather than deeming it as "a jab that fails to amount to constructive disagreement", and adamantly think this should undoubtedly pass. Like said before, a lot of effort for a little gain.

I was. Epyriel heard multiple objectors out and addressed all of them. Also, it would absolutely not be a lot of effort. I can write a mass-editing script that'll handle this change in minutes.

 

[CloverDragon03]

It is not remotely ridiculous. This discussion has been drawn out long enough, and people using these pointless jabs to get in the way of such a simple accuracy change wastes time that could be spent on more useful projects.

I'm telling you now: yes, it is ridiculous. You're trying to tell people "hey, stop disagreeing" as if disagreement isn't part of a debate. You should know by now that my stance has changed to agreement with the thread, but that doesn't exactly change the fact that how you've handled this has been far less than ideal.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I'm telling you now: yes, it is ridiculous. You're trying to tell people "hey, stop disagreeing" as if disagreement isn't part of a debate. You should know by now that my stance has changed to agreement with the thread, but that doesn't exactly change the fact that how you've handled this has been far less than ideal.

Starting your post with "I'm telling you now" and then repeating what you said has zero persuasive value. I'm not deaf to hearing disagreements, but that fact is abused by people who put a jab into a thread that very blatantly does not meaningfully contribute.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Starting your post with "I'm telling you now" and then repeating what you said has zero persuasive value. I'm not deaf to hearing disagreements, but that fact is abused by people who put a jab into a thread that very blatantly does not meaningfully contribute.

You can't police people's sentiments, though, which is kind of what you've been doing with this whole "stop throwing these unnecessary roadblocks" tirade.

I'd rather just drop this and focus on the thread at hand, so this will be my last post on the matter, but this is my view on the matter.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

You can't police people's sentiments, though, which is kind of what you've been doing with this whole "stop throwing these unnecessary roadblocks" tirade.

I'd rather just drop this and focus on the thread at hand, so this will be my last post on the matter, but this is my view on the matter.

I'll leave it here, then. I'm not trying to police sentiments, merely to minimize clutter, even if my tone may have been too harsh.

 

[GarrixianXD]

I would appreciate if someone can delete the derailing posts here…

 

[CloverDragon03]

The matter's been settled, so I'm not sure how necessary that is.

Also, I'll put down the tally for the staff members' stances on changing Dwarf Star level to Brown Dwarf level:

Agree: SamanPatou, LordGriffin1000, IdiosyncraticLawyer, CloverDragon03
Disagree: DontTalkDT, DarkDragonMedeus, Elizhaa, Qawsedf234, Colonel Krukov, KLOL506
Neutral:
Unclear: GyroNutz

(Bolded names indicate those who have evaluation rights)

This is the current tally.

@Antvasima I know you commented on the matter earlier. Based on your earlier comments, is it safe to label you as agreeing with the proposed change?

@DarkDragonMedeus @Elizhaa The OP has asked before, but he couldn't tag staff, so I'll ask now: Since Catzlaflame offered to make the appropriate name change with a bot, thus significantly reducing the workload and rendering that essentially a non-issue, has your stance on the thread changed? (I didn't ping DT because he might still be on break)

 

[GarrixianXD]

This is the current tally.

Add me to the disagree section.

 

[Antvasima]

The matter's been settled, so I'm not sure how necessary that is.

It is probably fine for the posts in question to remain. The disagreements were not particularly hostile.

This is the current tally.

Thank you for the overview.

@Antvasima I know you commented on the matter earlier. Based on your earlier comments, is it safe to label you as agreeing with the proposed change?

That is correct, yes.

@DarkDragonMedeus @Elizhaa The OP has asked before, but he couldn't tag staff, so I'll ask now: Since Catzlaflame offered to make the appropriate name change with a bot, thus significantly reducing the workload and rendering that essentially a non-issue, has your stance on the thread changed? (I didn't ping DT because he might still be on break)

Thank you very much to Catzlaflame for being willing to help out.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Thanks for the response. I've updated the tally

 

[Epyriel]

DT makes the most sense to me.

DT’s main objection was the workload, but that has been addressed with Catzlaflame’s offer to do it with a bot.

As the work would be minimal and the change would greatly increase the tiering system’s astronomical accuracy, would you please be willing to let the revision go through?

 

[Antvasima]

It is an exaggeration to say that it will be done in minutes, but a few hours with an AutoWikiBrowser mass-editing script should probably work.

 

[Everything12]

Put me neutral for Brown Dwarf, accurate but not aesthetically pleasing.

Agree to substellar.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Put me neutral for Brown Dwarf, accurate but not aesthetically pleasing.

Since when has being "ascetically pleasing" been a component of rational judgement? The term is accurate, period.