Tier 6 Mario Revision

[JJSliderman]

How about we just use Cursa downscaling to get everyone to 3-C.

 

[Chariot190]

who the **** is cursa

 

[DaReaperMan]

Oh my God people, Chariot's job begins and ends at being a math guy.

He's not a thread mod who's supposed to be fairly knowledgeable on what's acceptable and what's not within reason as well as being the primary people to tell others to knock off the insults

He's not a content mod who's job is to basically just be the people who know the wiki's source code and how to do it within their rules and just check recent wiki activity every one in awhile

These are the basic mod positions you expect more tact from, but it does not fall within a calc moderator's preview to be nicer than most people

If you think Chariot is being more blunt and aggressive than necessary, then just tell him to knock it off, don't take some moral high ground about how we're better-- cause we ain't!

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Not how this works, we don't index conjecture.
Making something known, whether it's your opinion or not, doesn't change the fact it's still made up.

Innocence, till proven guilty, doesn't work, it's you post evidence or drop it.

He looked at the feat and gave his thoughts on the matter, he's not actively trying to fabricate details like you're accusing him of. As an Admin, I am doing my job to call people out on hostility. In fact, I was in the middle of my work shift when I got quite a bit of messages on my phone asking me to inform you to calm down and/or report you to an HR group member. But wanted to simply try talking to you first.

Yeah, and i do, me saying **** isn't a personal attack, knock it off DDM.

I never said it was.

******, really man? Ya say the above then do that?
Is that not a personal insult and attack on one's person? That doesn't even say "acting like", you're explicitly stating me as such, hmmm....

Pot calling the kettle black no? What makes you special DDM?

I and many other users called you out for this before. And it's been an on going habit plenty of people known you for years. I'm not just talking about your behavior here specifically. Calling you out for your misbehavior or bad habits is not an insult, it's constructive criticism. Also, this has nothing to do with me, just doing my job at keeping things civil.

Yes, and i stand by it, im gonna say ****, unless it's a rule, get over it. Youre acting like im insulting you, im not, only person who's actually insulted ANYONE here, is you.

Actually, you were rude to ZespeonGalaxy with the bold accusations. And persistently rude to SomebodyData and JJSliderman on multiple threads. And not the first time. I never resorted to name calling or belittled anyone's intelligence or capability. I simply called you out for your overly temperamental attitude. And it's not just me, but I'm in entire servers who cannot stand your behavior.

Yes, and then they made stuff up.

What do you not get? Saying someone made shit up, multiple posts in of them saying it, is past the point.

And hell, you're acting like i said that as a bad thing, it wasnt, it's simply what happened. As a mod, as even a normal user, i fully expect someone to call out made up stuff.

I scrolled up and saw what he said. And honestly, he did or said nothing wrong. ZespeonGalaxy is legit trying to keep things civil here and debate in good faith. Not saying he's objectively right, nor did he claim to be, but he debated his honest opinion. But you're the one who accused him of being condescending when that's more so on you. You could have simply said "That's hardly accurate" or "Weird way to interpret it" as opposed to accusing him of "Making shit up." That would have simply been better.

Well let's see, no personal insults unlike you, saying **** in the year 2024, not even directed at someone, actively replying to all their arguments they spent time on.

Yeah no, feel like i got this covered, as it stands the rudest, least respectful person here, is you.

And no offense, it doesnt matter what you mind, it's completely in line with the rules, i even asked when the filter got added.

The word if used on occasion was never what I had issues with in the first place. All I did was tell you to calm down in my first post. And in my second, I called you out for what you legit do a lot as of late; and what a lot of people have known you for years have pointed out. Which is in no way disrespectful but simply an effort to keep the community a safe and peaceful place for all.

Anyway, I am not going to be discussing this further here. Either take it up to DMs or Message Walls. But I may have a chat with someone else.

As for the topic at hand, I agree most of the lists aren't really real valid anti-feats that caused any deaths or traumatic injuries. Or the damaging or KO'ing came from other sources. There were some valid ones that are just gags and a few left that are just pretty valid anti-feats in general. But not that it all matters since we should just be gathering feats instead of either listing or debunking every single anti-feat in existence in a single quantity over quality OP post or blogpost.

 

[JJSliderman]

who the **** is cursa

Character from Mario and Rabbids, the plot of the game is her spreading goop across a galaxy.

I’ll be honest, after seeing this thread I was wrong to criticize your way of speaking, I definitely say the f-word a fair bit with friends and it’s your right.

 

[Baken384]

Disagree

 

[Chariot190]

As for the topic at hand, I agree most of the lists aren't really real valid anti-feats that caused any deaths or traumatic injuries. Or the damaging or KO'ing came from other sources. There were some valid ones that are just gags and a few left that are just pretty valid anti-feats in general. But not that it all matters since we should just be gathering feats instead of either listing or debunking every single anti-feat in existence in a single quantity over quality OP post or blogpost.

Quantity is important for consistency.

Character from Mario and Rabbids, the plot of the game is her spreading goop across a galaxy.

I’ll be honest, after seeing this thread I was wrong to criticize your way of speaking, I definitely say the f-word a fair bit with friends and it’s your right.

Is that even canon? To mainline i mean.

 

[Antvasima]

With no offence intended, I agree with Medeus in that we are supposed to make a continuous effort to be nice, polite, and respectful in this community. It easily creates an overall bad mood otherwise.

I would greatly appreciate if you are willing to tone down your language please, Chariot. It is possible to make roughly the same points with a more polite choice of words. Thanks in advance for any help.

 

[Armorchompy]

Mario + Rabbids is confirmed non-canon

Also uh yall chill or smt

 

[Chariot190]

With no offence intended, I agree with Medeus in that we are supposed to make a continuous effort to be nice, polite, and respectful in this community. It easily creates an overall bad mood otherwise.

I would greatly appreciate if you are willing to tone down your language please, Chariot. It is possible to make roughly the same points with a more polite choice of words. Thanks in advance for any help.

I said **** 11 times, total, over 3+ long posts, prior to DDM. One of which was "WTF", the rest being just basic "he was knocked the **** out", "lava ***** him up", "******' weird but ok" (this one was me even agreeing even....), aka, reference to the actual material.

I might swear, but I take an effort in not actually insulting someone, making personal attacks, etc. And this thread alone is baffling because not only did I say ****, a word that is allowed, a mere handful of times, none of them were done in a manner that wasn't just, basic talking or expression.

The other alleged issue, me saying "Don't make shit up", isn't even wrong.
Lad's argument was pure headcanon and he was given a chance to prove his point multiple times. If a CRT's points hinge on pure conjecture not based or corroborated and even actively contradicted by all material, never even mentioned. Well, saying a point is made up, when it is, should be expected, I pray people call stuff like that out, failure to do so compromises our profile accuracy.

I vehemently standby that nothing wrong was done, on the contrary, DDM calling me obnoxious and narrow-minded, a synonym for prejudice no less, for simply doing what's expected of me, without any rule-breaking, on a thread that was fine, well... Normally I wouldn't care, but, ya know...

 

[XSOULOFCINDERX]

I'm on Chariot's side here.

 

[Armorchompy]

Let's just talk about the actual thread, this isn't the place for people to argue and I'm sure OP would rather not have to deal with this happening in their thread.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Anyway, on topic. I already said my thoughts on the matter. I agree that the methods to handle the original downgrade were disastrous; I don't even disagree with some of those being validly notable anti-feats. But gathering every single 9-B anti-feat to call Tier 4, 3 or Tier 2 stuff outliers but not the Tier 6 stuff is a weird golden egg fallacy. But I could say the same thing for the OP, I wouldn't make a thread simply attempting to dismiss the anti-feats but simply gather some consistent feats within some of the higher up levels and/or elaborate attempts for lore scaling. This includes if people want to argue in support of the existence of UES, they can do so but try to look for evidence of such.

 

[SamanPatou]

It's disingenous to say that all 9-B feats were gathered, as we get well up into tier 7 in there.
Moreover, those aren't random instances like Mario being hurt by a falling rock, but all instances related to plot sequences or stuff that are meant to show how even in key points Mario is intended in a more grounded way rather than a cosmic buster super hero.

 

[James_Plays_4_Games]

It's disingenous to say that all 9-B feats were gathered, as we get well up into tier 7 in there.
Moreover, those aren't random instances like Mario being hurt by a falling rock, but all instances related to plot sequences or stuff that are meant to show how even in key points Mario is intended in a more grounded way rather than a cosmic buster super hero.

DarkDragonMedeus stating that every single tier 9-B feat was gathered doesn't imply that he doesn't believe feats of other tiers were also gathered. He was referring to one specific part of the reason behind the tier 6 downgrade that he dislikes. Obviously, the existence of better occurrences and the acknowledgement of them, like you wrote, tier 7 feats having been gathered, played a part in the downgrade, and those weren't what DarkDragonMedeus was addressing.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I said it before and I'll say it again: I wasn't big on the Tier 6 conclusion because it felt very arbitrarily picked out. I never felt like there was a legitimate reason for 6-C to be selected, it was just... picked for the hell of it. You could literally argue whatever tier you wanted based on which feats you wanted to emphasize and which anti-feats you wanted to ignore. 9-B? Sure. 8-C? Why not? 7-B? I've heard worse. 6-C? Fair enough. High 4-C? Don't see the issue.

When you get to this level of arbitrary, what are you really supposed to do?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It's disingenous to say that all 9-B feats were gathered, as we get well up into tier 7 in there.
Moreover, those aren't random instances like Mario being hurt by a falling rock, but all instances related to plot sequences or stuff that are meant to show how even in key points Mario is intended in a more grounded way rather than a cosmic buster super hero.

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply every single 9-B in existence period. But rather the overwhelming majority of it was Tier 9 and the existence of a couple dozen anti-feats in the Tier 9 department with some occasional tier 8 and tier 7 stuff being the final reason to consider Tier 6 the most consistent was where a lot of the issues comes from.

 

[ZespeonGalaxy]

Aight so rn I've been quite busy as I had to do multiple errands Irl yadda yadda. And on top of losing some interest considering the way I've been talked to which left a bad taste on my mouth big time, but I'm willing to put it behind us.

I'm sure OP would rather not have to deal with this happening in their thread

yeah this thread was rather going in ways I really did not want it to. And I appreciate your civility. It truly goes a long way.

 

[Armorchompy]

Anyway, on topic. I already said my thoughts on the matter. I agree that the methods to handle the original downgrade were disastrous; I don't even disagree with some of those being validly notable anti-feats. But gathering every single 9-B anti-feat to call Tier 4, 3 or Tier 2 stuff outliers but not the Tier 6 stuff is a weird golden egg fallacy.

Believe it or not, but I actually put a little bit of thought into said "disastrous" thread that took me weeks to make and got like 23 agreement votes. This is repeatedly explained in my original thread, but 6-C was picked because unlike cosmic tiers it actually has a decent amount of backing to it, given there's what, eight tier 7 feats? I proposed 6-C because, well first off I didn't want to cause too much controversy since I knew a lot of people wouldn't take the downgrade well and I thought it would be a good compromise (Fat lot of good that did me).

More importantly though my logic was that if Mario was rated as something like mid tier 8, which is I think the "correct" rating when looking at the antifeats, people would be quick (and right) to point out the presence of higher tier 8 showings, and once the verse upgraded to that (Because it'd be weird to ignore something that's only a few times higher than currently accepted feats) they'd point out the low tier 7 ones, and then the higher tier 7 ones, and so on. It's weird to have an 8-B character when there's an 8-A feat, and it's weird to have an 8-A one when there's a Low 7-C feat, so on so forth. So I picked the highest feat that had a good "ladder" of feats under it (and no feats immediately right above it, to my knowledge).

The way I view it, it's the highest Mario feat that actually has solid backing. If you or others don't find that logic satisfactory, understand that 6-C being an outlier wouldn't suddenly make tier 4-3 any less of one, and that as far as I'm concerned with proper reasoning you're free to try to downgrade the verse to something that does more closely fit the verse's usual portrayal (which would be somewhere between 9-A and like 8-B, though I would lean towards the latter). Thanks.

 

[Luckyfun]

Let's calm down and try gathering feats first.
No need to argue over which tier belongs to.

I can tolerate swear words. Just no more excessive amount.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I hate to derail further, but it is my hope that the side discussion can be put to rest. As penance, I'll speak on the OP of this thread afterwards.

I said ** 11 times, total, over 3+ long posts, prior to DDM. One of which was "WTF", the rest being just basic "he was knocked the ** out", "lava ***** him up", "******' weird but ok" (this one was me even agreeing even....), aka, reference to the actual material.

I might swear, but I take an effort in not actually insulting someone, making personal attacks, etc. And this thread alone is baffling because not only did I say ****, a word that is allowed, a mere handful of times, none of them were done in a manner that wasn't just, basic talking or expression.

The other alleged issue, me saying "Don't make shit up", isn't even wrong.
Lad's argument was pure headcanon and he was given a chance to prove his point multiple times. If a CRT's points hinge on pure conjecture not based or corroborated and even actively contradicted by all material, never even mentioned. Well, saying a point is made up, when it is, should be expected, I pray people call stuff like that out, failure to do so compromises our profile accuracy.

I vehemently standby that nothing wrong was done, on the contrary, DDM calling me obnoxious and narrow-minded, a synonym for prejudice no less, for simply doing what's expected of me, without any rule-breaking, on a thread that was fine, well... Normally I wouldn't care, but, ya know...

It is accurate to say that swearing is not against the rules in of itself. I should know, I do it liberally and at times recreationally. But, incessant cursing is a tone-setter, I think any human who speaks a language can agree, and the tone of your messages is needlessly combative. I recognize that others may well have also had instances of combative tone (you yourself reacted to a fairly minor one in the OP, telling them to 'Cut the attitude'), but you have exacerbated it the most. The constant "dog", "chief", "bruh" additions to sentences, added to the cursing, added to the childish sentence structure, all seems to imply a greater attitude than the OP put out.

The rules are that if an administrator says you are acting out, getting too rowdy, what have you, that you listen and stop acting out. We have rules on politeness that can be cited for this, and failure to comply is cited as a reason for removal for a Calc Group Member. I do not think you have done anything deserving of such severe talk, obviously, but it is false to say that there are no rules on the subject. You have been rude repeatedly, and even as a CGM are held to some vaguely higher standard in terms of behavior than a normal member. Authority, however small, comes with responsibility.

Now, to your credit: I think the OP was acting out, and their behavior could reasonably be interpreted as instigative. Cutting that out is good, but the manner in which you did it was overtly rude- DDM telling you to knock it off is also basically good.

TL;DR just take a step back if an admin tells you to stop acting out. If you think you actually did good, there's better ways of handling that than trying to debate it on the thread.

 

[ZespeonGalaxy]

behavior could reasonably be interpreted as instigative

I really never meant or think I said anything that was instigative

 

[Mr. Bambu]

On the OP:

Most of it is not very sound reasoning, I don't feel a need to point out the many unique flaws to it- using HP as something more than a game mechanical contrivance, trying to defer to the vague intent or want of the developer regarding what a character can do as opposed to what the character can actually do on screen... not to take the lazy way out, but I agree with Armor (and by proxy Chariot).

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I really never meant or think I said anything that was instigative

Maybe not. And nothing you said would be considered a rule violation under practically any interpretation. But I can at least see an avenue by which someone might interpret it as such. Which I think is a fair mitigating factor on Chariot's behalf. No worries.

 

[James_Plays_4_Games]

Believe it or not, but I actually put a little bit of thought into said "disastrous" thread that took me weeks to make and got like 23 agreement votes. This is repeatedly explained in my original thread, but 6-C was picked because unlike cosmic tiers it actually has a decent amount of backing to it, given there's what, eight tier 7 feats? I proposed 6-C because, well first off I didn't want to cause too much controversy since I knew a lot of people wouldn't take the downgrade well and I thought it would be a good compromise (Fat lot of good that did me).

More importantly though my logic was that if Mario was rated as something like mid tier 8, which is I think the "correct" rating when looking at the antifeats, people would be quick (and right) to point out the presence of higher tier 8 showings, and once the verse upgraded to that (Because it'd be weird to ignore something that's only a few times higher than currently accepted feats) they'd point out the low tier 7 ones, and then the higher tier 7 ones, and so on. It's weird to have an 8-B character when there's an 8-A feat, and it's weird to have an 8-A one when there's a Low 7-C feat, so on so forth. So I picked the highest feat that had a good "ladder" of feats under it (and no feats immediately right above it, to my knowledge).

The way I view it, it's the highest Mario feat that actually has solid backing. If you or others don't find that logic satisfactory, understand that 6-C being an outlier wouldn't suddenly make tier 4-3 any less of one, and that as far as I'm concerned with proper reasoning you're free to try to downgrade the verse to something that does more closely fit the verse's usual portrayal (which would be somewhere between 9-A and like 8-B, though I would lean towards the latter). Thanks.

I appreciate the depth behind your reasoning, but it still stands that your method involves a bit of golden mean fallacy. "This kind of argument supposes that when there are two opposing viewpoints, the truth must lie somewhere in - between, ignoring the possibility that one of the viewpoints is simply wrong." …It's also possible that both viewpoints are wrong and the correct viewpoint is coincidentally in-between the two for a reason irrelevant to finding a middle ground.

The existence of a dozens of tier 9 feats doesn't make nuclear level any more reasonable than cosmic level and doesn't make either of them more consistent than tier 9 itself getting accepted outright, because neither the power of a nuke nor the power of a supernova are anywhere near weak enough for characters who possess them to fail to move a boulder as a major plot occurrence, get ultimately killed by a big fall or by lava at the end of almost every game, get injured by explosions that are smaller than a room, et cetera that you had listed, but the power of a wall exploding can be weak enough for characters to be portrayed like that. Your point is that it's an essential part of Mario's character to not have cosmic strength, but most of your evidence involves implying that it's an essential part of Mario's character to have wall explosion strength, which also accidentally counts nuclear strength out, despite urban strength or nuclear strength being the conclusion you aimed to reach about Mario. Y'know what's more weird than a character being ranked as mid tier 8 when they have slightly higher tier 8 feats, which leads to that being interpreted as weird because of tier 7 feats, and so on? A character being ranked as any of those if tier 9 is supposedly even more consistent than all of it. If it's an essential part of Mario's character to have the physicality of a wall exploding, then that's that, and any reluctance to rank him as tier 9 outright either is a bias against ranking characters as tier 9 due to prioritizing their higher feats despite their inconsistency, or is because it's not actually essential for Mario to be tier 9 and the implication was instead produced by a roundabout way of you in particular reaching a conclusion about ranking Mario.

If it's most consistent that Mario's physicality is in the tier 8 to tier 6 range, then just list events that demonstrate so, including why it's contextually sensible compared to tier 9 and the cosmic tiers. I understand that you having listed dozens of tier 9 feats was probably your attempt to explain why tier 6 ends up being contextually sensible, but that doesn't actually tell me anything about tier 6, it only tells me about tier 9. It only gives me evidence that Mario is tier 9, which you weren't trying to prove. If you only listed dozens of tier 9 feats to make cosmic tiers in particular seem unreliable, but tiers 8 to 6 are somehow exempt from the implications of the tier 9 feats, then you were finding a middle ground between tier 9 and cosmic tiers, which is the golden mean fallacy, even if you didn't intend it.

I have no problem with Mario being pretty much any tier, so as long as the process is reasonable, he could be indexed anywhere between tier 10 and tier 1 and it wouldn't matter to me. He's inconsistent in both feats and portrayal, so I'm not attached to interpreting him as a specific tier, and I'm not rooting for anything in this thread except for the anti-feat compilation to be organized better. That's suitable for me to do, because after all, this thread's proposal has no concern for proposing a specific tier. It's supposed to be a "debunk" of the anti-feats, and as I expressed in this thread's first page, while there is plenty that I don't agree with in the original post, there is still room for making some adjustments to the anti-feat compilation, and I feel that it would be a waste of an opportunity to dismiss the whole proposal based on what it mostly is.

 

[Armorchompy]

I appreciate the depth behind your reasoning, but it still stands that your method involves a bit of golden mean fallacy. "This kind of argument supposes that when there are two opposing viewpoints, the truth must lie somewhere in - between, ignoring the possibility that one of the viewpoints is simply wrong." …It's also possible that both viewpoints are wrong and the correct viewpoint is coincidentally in-between the two for a reason irrelevant to finding a middle ground.

The existence of a dozens of tier 9 feats doesn't make nuclear level any more reasonable than cosmic level and doesn't make either of them more consistent than tier 9 itself getting accepted outright, because neither the power of a nuke nor the power of a supernova are anywhere near weak enough for characters who possess them to fail to move a boulder as a major plot occurrence, get ultimately killed by a big fall or by lava at the end of almost every game, get injured by explosions that are smaller than a room, et cetera that you had listed, but the power of a wall exploding can be weak enough for characters to be portrayed like that. Your point is that it's an essential part of Mario's character to not have cosmic strength, but most of your evidence involves implying that it's an essential part of Mario's character to have wall explosion strength, which also accidentally counts nuclear strength out, despite urban strength or nuclear strength being the conclusion you aimed to reach about Mario. Y'know what's more weird than a character being ranked as mid tier 8 when they have slightly higher tier 8 feats, which leads to that being interpreted as weird because of tier 7 feats, and so on? A character being ranked as any of those if tier 9 is supposedly even more consistent than all of it. If it's an essential part of Mario's character to have the physicality of a wall exploding, then that's that, and any reluctance to rank him as tier 9 outright either is a bias against ranking characters as tier 9 due to prioritizing their higher feats despite their inconsistency, or is because it's not actually essential for Mario to be tier 9 and the implication was instead produced by a roundabout way of you in particular reaching a conclusion about ranking Mario.

If it's most consistent that Mario's physicality is in the tier 8 to tier 6 range, then just list events that demonstrate so, including why it's contextually sensible compared to tier 9 and the cosmic tiers. I understand that you having listed dozens of tier 9 feats was probably your attempt to explain why tier 6 ends up being contextually sensible, but that doesn't actually tell me anything about tier 6, it only tells me about tier 9. It only gives me evidence that Mario is tier 9, which you weren't trying to prove. If you only listed dozens of tier 9 feats to make cosmic tiers in particular seem unreliable, but tiers 8 to 6 are somehow exempt from the implications of the tier 9 feats, then you were finding a middle ground between tier 9 and cosmic tiers, which is the golden mean fallacy, even if you didn't intend it.

I have no problem with Mario being pretty much any tier, so as long as the process is reasonable, he could be indexed anywhere between tier 10 and tier 1 and it wouldn't matter to me. He's inconsistent in both feats and portrayal, so I'm not attached to interpreting him as a specific tier, and I'm not rooting for anything in this thread except for the anti-feat compilation to be organized better. That's suitable for me to do, because after all, this thread's proposal has no concern for proposing a specific tier. It's supposed to be a "debunk" of the anti-feats, and as I expressed in this thread's first page, while there is plenty that I don't agree with in the original post, there is still room for making some adjustments to the anti-feat compilation, and I feel that it would be a waste of an opportunity to dismiss the whole proposal based on what it mostly is.

As I said, 6-C is partially a compromise. If you think they should be tier 9 (I think tier 8 at minimum is fine given there's a good two dozen tier 8 feats), again, sincerely, you can make a thread to downgrade it.

 

[JJSliderman]

Tier 6 already feels very wrong to me, not talking about accuracy or anything.
It’s just years and years of conditioning to him being a galaxy leveler

 

[James_Plays_4_Games]

As I said, 6-C is partially a compromise. If you think they should be tier 9 (I think tier 8 at minimum is fine given there's a good two dozen tier 8 feats), again, sincerely, you can make a thread to downgrade it.

My point is that a lot of the evidence you used in the anti-feat compilation implies the characters should be tier 9 when you weren't trying to prove that. I don't mind whatever tier they are, but I do mind the justification for it.

 

[Chariot190]

I hate to derail further, but it is my hope that the side discussion can be put to rest. As penance, I'll speak on the OP of this thread afterwards.

And, yet, you do? it already was? why drag it back it up? What are you expecting to happen?

It is accurate to say that swearing is not against the rules in of itself. I should know, I do it liberally and at times recreationally.

Of course, as such me saying swears is, fine? Acceptable? Nothing you yourself don't do.
As such, being warned for it has no grounds, slander even.

But, incessant cursing is a tone-setter, I think any human who speaks a language can agree, and the tone of your messages is needlessly combative.

There's no rule on a limit, that's a personal preference, whether it's 10 times or 1000 times a post, if it isnt personal attacks or whatnot, it is what it is. the ****** up part is, I do tone it down, ya know how often i remove shit just because "hmm that might sound to mean".

Saying **** is allowed, saying **** 100 times a post is fine, the very fact that before he even said anything, i said **** a mere 11 times, over multiple lengthy posts, of which they were done so in a completely fine manner like "he was knocked the **** out" or just exasperation. That's the worst part, it wasnt even excessive, yet im still being called out for it, not because it's wrong, but because DDM didnt like i called an argument made up, a fact that was deemed whatever in RVR.

You see the issue yes? What's the warning for? Cant say it at all now?
Well i know what i was for, and it sure as hell wasnt for anything done here based on DDM's following posts in DM's.

I recognize that others may well have also had instances of combative tone (you yourself reacted to a fairly minor one in the OP, telling them to 'Cut the attitude'), but you have exacerbated it the most.

Yeah, me saying ****, or hell even being combative on a debate forum, is within rules. Of course stuff will be a tad combative, it is an argument/debate no? Kinda expected, the swearing has nothing to do with that.

No personal attacks, slander, or derogatory comments, etc, worst I did was call someone out for making shit up, several posts in, something that isn't even wrong to do, if pointing out such a fact is a problematic thing, I expect the whole lot of you to be warned as well.

The constant "dog", "chief", "bruh" additions to sentences, added to the cursing, added to the childish sentence structure, all seems to imply a greater attitude than the OP put out.

What are you on about? That's me actively trying to be friendly?

Are you really going "you said dog so...."?

This is just your personal preference? A fact nobody has to conform to. And "seems to imply", so not actually attitude but rather just taking standard 2024 slang to be a sign of hostility and attitude? It isnt, do that in normal talk, or friendly discussion, the very fact those words have zero negative connotations im aware of is further bafflement.

Why am i being chastised for saying bro of all things?

The rules are that if an administrator says you are acting out, getting too rowdy, what have you, that you listen and stop acting out.

How? What's there to listen to? Listening would be apparently never talking again.

it's an adminstrators job to call out actual fuckys not whatever the hell this was. if an admin calls someone out over nothing, their own personal preferences, or hell, actual stuff that never happened, goddamn right, I expect anyone to stand up for themselves. Being a mod isnt a pass for that.

Now, if i actually say, insulted the dude or actually broke rules, that'd be fine, but didnt so...?
Call me out when i actually do something, not when i call out a completely made up headcanon conjecture and, literally it actually, his initial warning, was that, which mind you was already dealt with in RVR so...?
Changing it to "well i dont like your tone", is baffling, given, my tone was ******* fine? His personal preferences arent the rules.

We have rules on politeness that can be cited for this, and failure to comply is cited as a reason for removal for a Calc Group Member. I do not think you have done anything deserving of such severe talk, obviously, but it is false to say that there are no rules on the subject. You have been rude repeatedly, and even as a CGM are held to some vaguely higher standard in terms of behavior than a normal member. Authority, however small, comes with responsibility.

Me saying **** is within my right, me saying friendly "bro" is in my right especially.

The, issue, is you looking for hostility that doesn't actually exist. (like, ******* saying "dog" is bad now too?).

if, i have done nothing deserving of this incessant complaining, why are you derailing a Mario thread further, after the fact, to chastise me on something that wasn't done wrong?

Now, to your credit: I think the OP was acting out, and their behavior could reasonably be interpreted as instigative. Cutting that out is good, but the manner in which you did it was overtly rude- DDM telling you to knock it off is also basically good.

Yeah see, i dont think OP was doing that either? I just think he was kinda yapping, not maliciously of course, just kinda spouting a lot of headcanon or handwaving anything that didnt conform. Why intepret it? You dont know him, i dont know him. Fact of the matter is, it was just back and forth yap about individual feats, after awhile i said "nah this shit made up", and then apparently i killed his dog or something. Only thing that came off odd was him acting lke the past CRT was objectvely wrong and bad and everything he'd say will somehow be accepted or true, called that out, dont even think it was malice, he prob legit thought that, but still.

DDM was telling me saying "saying someone made shit up bad", dude, even you say shit like that.
Dale, Armor, how many other mods? The answer, so goddamn many that the fact any of you so much as even glanced at me after saying that, is just double standards. Sure is for DDM.

If someone makes shit up, call them out for it instead of pretending. What I did, bro had chances, he did not, not gonna pretend further.

TL;DR just take a step back if an admin tells you to stop acting out.

Dude, it could be a bureaucrat or even the pope, or hell, even you clearly.
Standing up for myself when i wasnt in violation of anything against a mod that has consistently misconstrued facts about things, isnt wrong. Like goddamn kinda wishing i did do something wrong at this point to justify this.

If you think you actually did good, there's better ways of handling that than trying to debate it on the thread.

Yeah, and there's a better way of calling out instead, why derail further, DM's exist. Why couldnt you just DM me? Why derail further just to say "I do not think ya did anything wrong but- / you saying normal words is - / etc".

Get warned for saying **** in a generally acceptable manner, a fact I've checked mind you.
Me calling someone out for headcanon on a CRT after multiple posts and no evidence, a fact 99% of you here do daily.
And apparently, just because you dont like common words and intepret "dog" and "bro" as, well idk what but youre literally looking to deep into it and that's on you.

All the while I get called an obnoxious prejudiced narrow-minded egomaniac and anyone who thinks that is uncalled for are also condescending egomaniacs without an ounce of maturity, but yes, im the asshole apparently.

And has falsified info spread about me?

Why the hell would anyone just accept this slander?

If you, or any of you has issue, DM instead of derailing the very blatantly already ruined Mario CRT.

 

[DaReaperMan]

Quiet

Take it to walls

 

[Mr. Bambu]

And, yet, you do? it already was? why drag it back it up? What are you expecting to happen?

Of course, as such me saying swears is, fine? Acceptable? Nothing you yourself don't do.
As such, being warned for it has no grounds, slander even.

There's no rule on a limit, that's a personal preference, whether it's 10 times or 1000 times a post, if it isnt personal attacks or whatnot, it is what it is. the ****** up part is, I do tone it down, ya know how often i remove shit just because "hmm that might sound to mean".

Saying ** is allowed, saying ** 100 times a post is fine, the very fact that before he even said anything, i said ** a mere 11 times, over multiple lengthy posts, of which they were done so in a completely fine manner like "he was knocked the ** out" or just exasperation. That's the worst part, it wasnt even excessive, yet im still being called out for it, not because it's wrong, but because DDM didnt like i called an argument made up, a fact that was deemed whatever in RVR.

You see the issue yes? What's the warning for? Cant say it at all now?
Well i know what i was for, and it sure as hell wasnt for anything done here based on DDM's following posts in DM's.

Yeah, me saying ****, or hell even being combative on a debate forum, is within rules. Of course stuff will be a tad combative, it is an argument/debate no? Kinda expected, the swearing has nothing to do with that.

No personal attacks, slander, or derogatory comments, etc, worst I did was call someone out for making shit up, several posts in, something that isn't even wrong to do, if pointing out such a fact is a problematic thing, I expect the whole lot of you to be warned as well.

What are you on about? That's me actively trying to be friendly?

Are you really going "you said dog so...."?

This is just your personal preference? A fact nobody has to conform to. And "seems to imply", so not actually attitude but rather just taking standard 2024 slang to be a sign of hostility and attitude? It isnt, do that in normal talk, or friendly discussion, the very fact those words have zero negative connotations im aware of is further bafflement.

Why am i being chastised for saying bro of all things?

How? What's there to listen to? Listening would be apparently never talking again.

it's an adminstrators job to call out actual fuckys not whatever the hell this was. if an admin calls someone out over nothing, their own personal preferences, or hell, actual stuff that never happened, goddamn right, I expect anyone to stand up for themselves. Being a mod isnt a pass for that.

Now, if i actually say, insulted the dude or actually broke rules, that'd be fine, but didnt so...?
Call me out when i actually do something, not when i call out a completely made up headcanon conjecture and, literally it actually, his initial warning, was that, which mind you was already dealt with in RVR so...?
Changing it to "well i dont like your tone", is baffling, given, my tone was ******* fine? His personal preferences arent the rules.

Me saying **** is within my right, me saying friendly "bro" is in my right especially.

The, issue, is you looking for hostility that doesn't actually exist. (like, ******* saying "dog" is bad now too?).

if, i have done nothing deserving of this incessant complaining, why are you derailing a Mario thread further, after the fact, to chastise me on something that wasn't done wrong?

Yeah see, i dont think OP was doing that either? I just think he was kinda yapping, not maliciously of course, just kinda spouting a lot of headcanon or handwaving anything that didnt conform. Why intepret it? You dont know him, i dont know him. Fact of the matter is, it was just back and forth yap about individual feats, after awhile i said "nah this shit made up", and then apparently i killed his dog or something. Only thing that came off odd was him acting lke the past CRT was objectvely wrong and bad and everything he'd say will somehow be accepted or true, called that out, dont even think it was malice, he prob legit thought that, but still.

DDM was telling me saying "saying someone made shit up bad", dude, even you say shit like that.
Dale, Armor, how many other mods? The answer, so goddamn many that the fact any of you so much as even glanced at me after saying that, is just double standards. Sure is for DDM.

If someone makes shit up, call them out for it instead of pretending. What I did, bro had chances, he did not, not gonna pretend further.

Dude, it could be a bureaucrat or even the pope, or hell, even you clearly.
Standing up for myself when i wasnt in violation of anything against a mod that has consistently misconstrued facts about things, isnt wrong. Like goddamn kinda wishing i did do something wrong at this point to justify this.

Yeah, and there's a better way of calling out instead, why derail further, DM's exist. Why couldnt you just DM me? Why derail further just to say "I do not think ya did anything wrong but- / you saying normal words is - / etc".

Get warned for saying **** in a generally acceptable manner, a fact I've checked mind you.
Me calling someone out for headcanon on a CRT after multiple posts and no evidence, a fact 99% of you here do daily.
And apparently, just because you dont like common words and intepret "dog" and "bro" as, well idk what but youre literally looking to deep into it and that's on you.

All the while I get called an obnoxious prejudiced narrow-minded egomaniac and anyone who thinks that is uncalled for are also condescending egomaniacs without an ounce of maturity, but yes, im the asshole apparently.

And has falsified info spread about me?

Why the hell would anyone just accept this slander?

If you, or any of you has issue, DM instead of derailing the very blatantly already ruined Mario CRT.

You broke the rules, I'm not justifying this with a huge response. You can read them and disagree, but do abide by them in the future. Cheers.

 

[ZespeonGalaxy]

Evening all, (morning or afternoon depends on your timezone) Alright so verdict is. Im fine with taking the L here. And I dont really feel like engaging in this thread that has became a mess. I'll admit some of my arguments were messy flimsy or whatever. I dont mind being wrong, I just mind the way im being talked to and how the way some might talk that will mess with the environment of a thread. Not really upset just not in the mood to deal with yknow what. I just wanna move on, to everyone else. Im glad we were able to be civil. I never meant to be sassy or have an attitude that I still cant even be sure what it is. But point is, Im ready to move on and dont wanna be apart of this.


TLDR;

Taking the L gg's. The toxicity of this thread has been nothing I think is worth my time.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Want me to lock it?

 

[ZespeonGalaxy]

Want me to lock it?

Yeah, thats completely fine. Appreciate it in advanced. Have a great day Bambu and to everyone else.