• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Transduality Should be Nonduality

Status
Not open for further replies.
Qawsedf234 said:
Yeah your draft is fine.

If only any other mod would comment
Click to expand...
So were any requirements changed between TD and ND or was only the name changed. Also, will "non-dualities" be assumed to be immune to haxs such as concept transfer? If this happens, it would really be NLF.

For example, giving a soul to a soulless robot and making it vulnerable to spiritual attacks...
 
IdiosyncraticLawyer said:
I, who was just appointed today, am personally fine with Nonduality and Transduality being different Natures of one power the same way NEP has its three Natures. The Types would, I'm assuming, remain Specific Nonduality, General Nonduality, and Plurality.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the idea is to have ND and TD both having the same types.

Georredannea15 said:
So were any requirements changed between TD and ND or was only the name changed. Also, will "non-dualities" be assumed to be immune to haxs such as concept transfer? If this happens, it would really be NLF.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, if you believe that ND does not work differently than TD, despite me and others explaining how it does for several pages, then you really shouldn't be here. Same for your second question, because I literally just mentioned how ND and TD would work in that situation.

Also, I'm fairly certain you don't have the permission to keep commenting here.
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
With all due respect, if you believe that ND does not work differently than TD, despite me and others explaining how it does for several pages, then you really shouldn't be here. Same for your second question, because I literally just mentioned how ND and TD would work in that situation.

Also, I'm fairly certain you don't have the permission to keep commenting here.
Click to expand...
For example, giving a soul to a soulless robot and making it vulnerable to spiritual attacks...
Click to expand...
I just want one answer. Does ND work like this example? As I understand it, Qawsedf was the last to agree.

It's also been about 2 months and yes. I was one of the first to get permission for this revision and comment, but I don't remember who I got it from
 
You asked for other mods to comment. I just agreed with you, so how much more consensus is needed before applying this revision?
 
Are we will just make a word like transcending duality a transduality? Word like unbound, beyond and exceed and blablablbla
i mean it is just a word without futher context i think it just a resistence

Yeah if it say lack of duality, it will clear make you a nonduality or transduality with further context
 
Fixxed said:
Are we will just make a word like transcending duality a transduality? Word like unbound, beyond and exceed and blablablbla
i mean it is just a word without futher context i think it just a resistence

Yeah if it say lack of duality, it will clear make you a nonduality or transduality with further context
Click to expand...
I agreed
 
So is the staff consensus here that the Transduality page should be renamed Nonduality, but contain a Transduality section, and which staff members have though what here exactly?
 
Antvasima said:
So is the staff consensus here that the Transduality page should be renamed Nonduality, but contain a Transduality section, and which staff members have though what here exactly?
Click to expand...
Agreeing staff - Deagonx, Qawsedf234, Firestorm808, CloverDragon03, Flashlight237, and myself
Disagreeing staff - DontTalkDT
Neutral staff - DarkDragonMedeus
The consensus is significantly in favor of this revision, but we should ideally let DT speak at least a bit more to list objections.
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
DT seems to have no interest in commenting here, given the time that has passed.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. First, DT is very busy with all the threads he has to juggle, and second, a bureaucrat opposing a thread makes trying to pass it over their opinion highly inadvisable. We should only disregard DontTalk if he comes out and says directly he's not interested anymore, which he hasn't done.
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
What, so DT can just shoot this down by doing absolutely nothing?
Click to expand...
Bureaucrats have veto powers regarding wiki policy changes. So in a sense, yes. It's not "doing nothing" per se, but, yeah you get what I mean.

Though in this specific case, greater staff consensus should be reached anyways. But if other staff ain't interested, well...
 
Awesome, functional system. Close this then, because there's nothing stopping DT from just abusing his staff privilege and grinding the thread to a halt.
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
What exactly would change if DT comes back and still disagrees?
Click to expand...
Discuss it with him. He's a reasonable person, and you have an opportunity to present your case.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
Awesome, functional system. Close this then, because there's nothing stopping DT from just abusing his staff privilege and grinding the thread to a halt.
Click to expand...
No. This is just following proper wiki procedure, and DT is not that haughty.
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
And what if he still disagrees? Do we just decide that every other staff vote is irrelevant?
Click to expand...
If a bureaucrat vetoes a revision, it can't pass until they relent regardless of consensus. I would kindly appreciate it if you drop this nonstop complaining about wiki policy.
 
Then there's no point here, just close the thread. Good thing nobody on this site follows the transduality rules anyways lol
 
To support @IdiosyncraticLawyer's point, this is the rule he is referring to.
  • For changes that have a significant impact on the entire wiki, additional safeguards are in place. Only the most trusted and experienced staff members will evaluate the proposed courses of action. Please note that this version incorporates the Ancient Rome-style universal veto, which allows any single staff member (Bureaucrat) with veto power to block a proposed decision, even if it has the support of the majority.
Click to expand...
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
Then there's no point here, just close the thread. Good thing nobody on this site follows the transduality rules anyways lol
Click to expand...
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
Cool. Then close the thread.
Click to expand...
I would also kindly appreciate it if you stopped incessantly calling for revisions to be closed just because you can't pass them over a veto. The state of this thread is nothing unique - the following threads are also waiting for DT to have spare time, and these are just the ones I could remember off the top of my head:
  1. https://vsbattles.com/threads/delet...the-reality-fiction-interactions-page.144227/
  2. https://vsbattles.com/threads/low-1-a-wiki-wide-tiering-revision-beyond-dimensions.151894/
  3. https://vsbattles.com/threads/revising-marvels-abstracts-part-2-of.154943/
Please remember that you've made a convincing argument that I agreed with along with five other staff. DT is a reasonable person, so we do have good chances of convincing him of our position, and even if you abandon your thread, I'll argue it for you.
 
Last edited:
DT ain't showing up, just give up man

I AM curious why other staff threads that DT disagrees with aren't in permanent limbo like this one though 🤔
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
DT ain't showing up, just give up man

I AM curious why other staff threads that DT disagrees with aren't in permanent limbo like this one though 🤔
Click to expand...
A lot of them are. It doesn't look that way because most staff threads don't have anyone devoted enough to them to keep pushing them when DT doesn't respond; I'm the only staff member trying to clear out the staff forum backlog, which is coming along really slowly.
 
IdiosyncraticLawyer said:
A lot of them are. It doesn't look that way because most staff threads don't have anyone devoted enough to them to keep pushing them when DT doesn't respond; I'm the only staff member trying to clear out the staff forum backlog, which is coming along really slowly.
Click to expand...
How exactly do you plan on clearing the backlog when DT is, again, capable of stalling a thread forever by doing nothing? You cant close those threads because DT hasn't given the final word, and you cant apply them since he didn't agree. Seems a little counterintuitive to your goal.
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
How exactly do you plan on clearing the backlog when DT is, again, capable of stalling a thread forever by doing nothing? You cant close those threads because DT hasn't given the final word, and you cant apply them since he didn't agree. Seems a little counterintuitive to your goal.
Click to expand...
DT's priority right now is Ultima's Marvel Comics revision, which is almost done. He will comment eventually, so we just have to wait.
 
Milly_Rocking_Bandit said:
The idea that entire threads are strong-armed into stagnancy due to the input of one person, where in any other instance, you would be told make another CRT to contest the changes—sorta makes you think.
Click to expand...
DT is a bureaucrat with veto rights.
 
Antvasima said:
So is the staff consensus here that the Transduality page should be renamed Nonduality, but contain a Transduality section, and which staff members have though what here exactly?
Click to expand...
Antvasima said:
Well, personally I do not mind this change.

I will remind DontTalk to comment here. 🙏
Click to expand...
I will remind him again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Verrel966
Ask about Qualitatively Superior on Transduality
Replies
9
Views
2K
Astral_Trinity439
Astral_Trinity439
Fixxed
  • Locked
Higher D by Transcending Infinite/all level of Power and Existential
Replies
7
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Georredannea15
A little change or fix for the Nonduality page??
2
Replies
75
Views
10K
Antvasima
Antvasima
NousGalia
Question about Qualitative superiority?
Replies
31
Views
1K
Astral_Trinity439
Astral_Trinity439
Kulf_Boba
Doubts about Level 1-A
Replies
13
Views
1K
Kulf_Boba
Kulf_Boba
Back
Top