You can solve this problem and switch back and forth between source code and visual mode editing by first clicking the following symbol (the one furthest to the right) when you respond to a discussion thread:
So, what we do now?
So, we end this or...? Because it seems quite redundant and seems to be circular. Not to mention the change was already applied to the profile.
I wouldn't really, no. As far as the rules are concerned, I have up to two weeks to respond to this thread. Obviously, I am not going to wait 14 days to answer (Weekend started for me, so, today is it), but given that, I, as of now, see no reason for this, especially given I haven't even addressed everything I want to, as of yet (Like the potential questions Pain said they have regarding my arguments, but that's just an example)
I'll just point out one thing. Ultima did tell you to make a CRT to change the tiering system if you felt that it was inaccurate yet you never did and continue to impose your ideas that go against the current established tiering system. So, when are you actually going to make a CRT to change the flaw that you believe exists there instead of pointing out a flaw in the tiering system without doing anything more than that?
Throwing in my two cents here.
Your previous argument on the last thread is actually not really legible to me due to your sentence structure (no offense) but it seems to be saying that viewing something as fiction doesn't = a r>f difference all the time.
The fact that he wrote the page doesn't exist in a vacuum, this is a very important page that affects the whole wiki and its content was evaluated and agreed on by many notable users to stay as it is. If the interpretation those users had on that bit isn't necessarily the same as the interpretation Ultima gives here then it doesn't mattar how he made the page, his interpretation would be incorrect. I concluded that, therefore I expressed that, which is something that can happen regardless of him being the one who made the page. I'm sure Ultima intended the same uses & mechanics for that wording the same day he first proposed it as he does now.
Quoting myself from the upgrade thread, in which I believe I was sufficiently legible: "Even if the "player" had a transcendence like this over Undertale, why would the player be Low 1-C and Undertale as a whole Low 2-C rather than the player being just some regular human in stats and Undertale a fictional game? What makes Undertale real when the argument is that it portrays itself as a game/fiction? Reality Equalization could be used to validate calc's for the Undertale characters, but it wouldn't need to be used on the player to give them a Low 1-C stat."
I didn't know you can invoke Death of the Author on wiki policy pages to support your own point.
This doesn't contradict anything, really. I think the argument for the Player is that it requires basic sense of storytelling to realize that the Player is a stand-in for you. But this is a lesser counterargument as there are far worse things wrong with your post than this.
The Player being able to move on with their life has no bearing on their ontology. The Player having an emotional attachment to UT characters has no bearing on their ontology. The UT world being able to exist without the Player has no bearing on their ontology.
????????
Lucky for you, I did ask Saikou about it. Let me quote him.
Your view of the matter is wrong, and apparently oppressive. Anyone can "invoke Death of the Author on wiki policy pages" just like anyone can "invoke Death of the Author" in anything serious (like law on the word "Alter" to mean "change its functionality" but not destruction, to give a random example I like). They simply need to believe to be correct and have their reasons for it. I have that, regardless of how you disagree with my reasons. In any context like this the interpretation of the person who wrote the rules in question doesn't matter, because it had to be reviewed & agreed on by more people who would also be authority. You cannot claim that just because Ultima's interpretation is X, all of those other people's interpretation is X too rather than Z because you don't know that. You cannot claim that accepting that standard had to mean accepting that same interpretation of that standard because that is dogmatic, as such in this context it doesn't matter how he explains what that interpretation is.
I take all the things the player has going for as too many oxymorons for a Low 1-C being, all the reasons that would make them reach that level and see UT as fiction (which are intuitive, and not stated in an objective way) don't care about about all the reasons that would make it intuitive for them to not see UT as fiction in the way a Low 1-C should. I know other Low 1-C characters can have those points I said and still be Low 1-C, but I take that that's due to their better context to be at that level, and not because those points wouldn't matter on their own. Nor do I take the things the player has going for as good enough on their own anyway.
That can happen just like a Low 1-C being can exist, it's fiction.
That settles it then, but that still means that if the player was Low 1-C (which I still disagree with), their profile would need to state that it uses Reality Equalization for it, given the Reality Equalization page's rules.
Maybe in a weird sci-fi verse that happens, but we wouldn't default to that. We tend to default to basic physics (which would imply qualitative superiority) over a weird esoteric concept like that.
They aren't oxymorons though? What? None of the concepts that you brought up are contradictory to the Player being on a higher level of existence to Undertale. You need to prove a contradiction before claiming there is one.
And I can claim that other people who accepted the page agreed with Ultima's interpretation since he was the one who wrote them down and applied it to the wiki. If he didn't get other people to accept the policy then the page wouldn't be accepted in the first place. Staff members wouldn't apply changes that they didn't agree upon. That's the literal entire point of the wiki.
I'm not saying you're specifically doing anything malicious, but you simply can't disregard Ultima's interpretation in favor of your own without altering the page to support your own interpretation.
This is you putting your interpretation on the page which differs from what is already agreed upon (since you straight up said that it probably meant something else and worded it badly). Ultima says that it wasn't worded badly and that's what he intended,
Wanted to expand on what I meant here.
I agree with this atm
Nothing said I had to revert the changes only because Ultima had something to say at the last ******* second.
...I'll just revert everything back to it's former state once I get back on my laptop.
And I'll revert your changes once you do. It does not work like that, wanker.
My brother in website, you can't apply something that hasn't been finished as far as kita is concerned, oui?
It was accepted, and only Ultima disagrees up to now. So no, it'll only be reverted once is totally rejected from the previous staff who has agreed before.
...Have they been asked twice? We don't think only a single response from each staff 3 WEEKS ago is considered plausible.
3 weeks? This CRT was made not even 2 weeks ago. And yes, 3 of them still agree with me lol.
"wanker" It's not that deep oml
Well, I'm going to revert it back to it's original state prior to this CRT later so yeah. I agree
that's not what I meant, I meant keep the profile where it's at for right now (which is 2-B) until we get stuff sorted.
Before, now or after?
