Universal DMC: Dante's Awakening

[Kepekley23]

By waiting until one side backs down.

 

[GrathOfLux]

Well... *sigh* I'm really hoping there is some way for this to come to a close.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

...Literally who said anything about concluding the thread based on votes again?

Why'd you ask for a how many votes there are then?.

 

[Kepekley23]

Why'd you ask for a how many votes there are then?.

Because I hadn't been keeping up with this thread.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Don't use votes. Use arguments. Everyone can hire an army to say "I agree".

 

[LordGriffin1000]

@Kep

Ok.

 

[Dienomite22]

Damn, people are THAT loaded, I've been doing something wrong then

 

[GrathOfLux]

Don't use votes. Use arguments. Everyone can hire an army to say "I agree".

For once on this thread, I completely agree with you.

 

[Kepekley23]

@DarkGrath

As a natural cynic little turd I am, I can accurately and precisely tell you the only way that doesn't involve pretending oneself to be unquestionably correct is having posts being thrown at each other until one side simply concedes or stops responding definitely.

That's the problem with our system as a whole, something that I have been criticizing and urging to be looked at as far back as 2017. Our entire system for rejecting or approving an upgrade is the most arbitrary thing to exist on this multiverse, and something that needs a major thread to be focused on urgently, not just for Devil May Cry, but for every single franchise out there.

Depending on which side you are on, votes can be considered a valid form of ending the debate, or a shameless appeal to popularity, and this is something I have pointed out blutly in many, many threads already, as some people might remember.

 

[GrathOfLux]

@Kepekley23

This has been a major problem since 2017? I... Should there not be some kind of guideline for this process? Like, a "default" way of settling a thread if it cannot reasonably be settled otherwise?

 

[Twellas]

@Kepekley23
This has been a major problem since 2017? I... Should there not be some kind of guideline for this process? Like, a "default" way of settling a thread if it cannot reasonably be settled otherwise?

Completely agree with him, we are running circles here guys, the first step should be to define how a thread this controversial and debated could be resolved

 

[Sparda_20000000]

I think we should rate them as

At least high 6-A likely 5-B possibly 3-A

 

[Twellas]

I think we should rate them as
At least high 6-A likely 5-B possibly 3-A

this topic has been touched already, there is no reason to assume that the feat is planetary, it is outright stated to be universal, the fact that we only see the planet being affected is not an argument since we as players perceive the phenomenon from Dante's and Lucia's perspective and they are obviously confined to earth. Saying that this feat is planetary is lowball for the sake of lowball, it's universal

 

[GrathOfLux]

Again, I genuinely think there should be some kind of rule list/guideline to how threads like this can be resolved. Having every CRT be accepted/rejected differently just based on "what feels right for the situation" is by no means acceptable and it's contrary to how this wiki is otherwise so thorough in keeping reliability. Unless there are any objections, when I have the time I'll bring up this topic with some of the staff (Antvasima might be a good start).

 

[PrettyFearMachine]

Don't use votes. Use arguments. Everyone can hire an army to say "I agree".

Well, not really. People would be quick to call you out for that, especially here. And that's not something that is being done here either.

 

[GrathOfLux]

Don't worry, Reb. I very highly doubt he's accusing anyone on here of doing that. Regardless of the conditions, choosing whether to accept/deny this thread based on vote count is quite fallacious, unless the vote count was overwhelmingly one-sided (which, if I'm being perfectly honest, is pretty much the case here. Even so, I'll defend the idea that we should not determine this by vote count unless absolutely necessary).

Also, I have contacted Antvasima about the issues with generally difficult CRT closure. Hoping to get a response soon.

 

[Antvasima]

Speaking from the perspective of the one who has likely participated in the greatest amount of content revision discussions in this wiki, I regrettably think that a "case by case basis, but the staff must approve it and try to find a consensus among themselves" semi-open rule is the only way that we can handle these threads.

Given that many less popular discussions usually don't get almost any staff input, whereas other threads can potentially get swarmed by new accounts voting a certain way, and the threads otherwise differ a lot from case to case, we cannot demand a "one size fits all" policy. We have to make do as best as we can instead.

As for this specific thread, is it possible to find some sort of compromise solution?

 

[GrathOfLux]

Speaking from the perspective of the one who has likely participated in the greatest amount of content revision discussions in this wiki, I regrettably think that a "case by case basis, but the staff must approve it and try to find a consensus among themselves" semi-open rule is the only way that we can handle these threads.
Given that many less popular discussions usually don't get almost any staff input, whereas other threads can potentially get swarmed by new accounts voting a certain way, and the threads otherwise differ a lot from case to case, we cannot demand a "one size fits all" policy. We have to make do as best as we can instead.

As for this specific thread, is it possible to find some sort of compromise solution?

I understand. We have considered the idea of perhaps a compromise solution, but that might be difficult. The closest we've gotten so far for a compromise solution is "At least High 6-A, likely 5-A, possibly 3-A" and even then this solution has a lot of problems (again, unless you want me to go into detail I will not bother you more than necessary). I suppose it might be worth contacting the other bureaucrats. Thank you for getting back to me so quickly.

 

[Twellas]

I think the best course of action would be to find a knowledgeable inpartial judge, but i don't even know if it's possible tbh

 

[Twellas]

or even better, find 3 knowledgeable unbiased judges, so that the fate of this thread doesn't stand on a single man's shoulders

 

[Antvasima]

Well, you can ask the other bureaucrats for help if you wish.

 

[KLOL506]

Also, why can't Abigail's storm calc use KE?

 

[GrathOfLux]

I'm in the process of asking the beureaucrats. Give me a moment.

 

[Schnee_One]

I think we should rate them as

At least high 6-A likely 5-B possibly 3-A

I. VEHEMENTLY, agree with this.

Listien, @Everyone, regardless of whatever side you are on, I think it's been made abundantly clear that unless there's a compromise neither side is going to back down from this debate for what they believe is accurate or not.

We have two choices here, we either.

A. Make a comfortable compromise where both sides aren't going to be debating eachother repeatedly (Perhaps we can debate whether or not 5B or High 6A is more accurate)

Or

B. We are still at each others throats in a debate that has already lasted 3 threads with over 1,000 posts.

Anyone?

 

[Kepekley23]

I disagree with a compromise. It is honestly, in my view, just a Golden Mean fallacy, especially on such a dissimilar scale. I think we have to accept that sometimes, someone is just wrong, and that no compromises are needed.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

I disagree with a compromise. It is honestly just a Golden Mean fallacy, especially on such a dissimilar scale. I think we have to accept that sometimes, someone is just wrong, and that no compromises are needed.

It is hard to define what is "wrong" and what is "right" though. This is fiction after all. Both sides obviously believe they are right.

 

[Kepekley23]

This thread is in dire need of a youtube link

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

What is even happening right now?....

 

[Schnee_One]

People want to keep going apparently

 

[GrathOfLux]

People, please. The reason I have been contacting the bureaucrat's is so that a conclusion can be reached. Just about every possible lick of evidence has already been explored on this thread. It's extraordinarily unlikely that either side will completely concede at this point. The suggested compromise is, as Kepe said, quite a blatant Golden Mean fallacy. And doing it based on vote count is an Appeal to Popularity fallacy. I'm contacting the bureaucrats so that we can have 3 reliable, trustworthy, unbiased judges to help finally put this case to rest. Debating this topic further, with how every tiny detail has already been accounted for, will never result in a conclusion.

 

[Kepekley23]

I will make a post myself on the issue.

Just to make it clear, I agree with the feat at this point.

 

[Ogbunabali]

I also disagree with a compromise, but at the same time a conclusion needs to be reached. And a war of attrition isn't going to benefit anyone. The staff are going to waste time they don't have and get frustrated, same with normal users.

 

[Schnee_One]

Fine fine I'll drop it

 

[Twellas]

the compromise is straight up inaccurate and disengenuous, it would only be made for the sake of making everyone happy but would effectively only create a never-ending feud between the 2 sides. Also, as it's been said and proven numeroud times, it's just wrong, the feat is universal

 

[GrathOfLux]

Alright. Ryukama, Promestein, and Azathoth have all been contacted. Hopefully together, a resolution for this CRT can finally be reached. Until then, could we hopefully remain civil and avoid complicating the debate further? Thank you.

 

[BlackDarkness679]

Btw shouldnt we also contact Itsuno or Mat about certain things in dmc as well as it was talked a while ago?So there wont be anything else left unknown and get more discussions in the future

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

The thing about the compromise is pretty silly, personally, as the only "confirmation" of it affecting the whole universe is one line from the guidebook, while context from the rest of the game and the series as a whole presents a different picture altogether. I can't believe that we are in the third thread and the discussion is still so circular as for people to respond to criticisms of the evidence by simply presenting them again as if they are unarguable laws written in stone.

 

[Schnee_One]

Fine fine I'll drop it

^Guys, I dropped it already, quit bringing it up

 

[Sam_Dragonborn]

By the way, Vergil could have defeated Mundus if he had not been weakened after his battle with Dante. (1).

 

[PrettyFearMachine]

By the way, Vergil could have defeated Mundus if he had not been weakened after his battle with Dante. (1).

Not sure if that's notable, as Mundus was still mostly sealed back there.