• 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.

Verse-Specific Rule Removal (And Small Bleach Rule Change)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Arc7Kuroi said:
Meat riding
Click to expand...
mechanical-bull-riding.gif
 
@Damage3245 No reason for this rule, it's 2022. Everyone should be at least a bit more mature since then and hostility isn't the same given the history of why the toxicity even started in the first place (plus you and I know both know most of the users behind the reasoning for that rule have left the wiki).
 
I'll reluctantly tread on this accursed soil.

I think the first rule removal is fine but we shouldn't get comfortable having it gone. First sign of significant trouble and we reinstate it. As in, immediately. None of us want to babysit more threads.

The second one seems extremely fishy to me. As the argument for replacing it doesn't reference why the rule exists in the first place, it more or less just argues we should change the size because someone found evidence of it being larger... even though the rule exists purely to deter such an argument from being made. So I'm against the second bit.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
As the argument for replacing it doesn't reference why the rule exists in the first place, it more or less just argues we should change the size because someone found evidence of it being larger
Click to expand...
Evidence was found of it being larger and a CRT was already made and accepted of the larger size. It's also more than just "evidence", we have a canon size statement that is being used now instead of the previous size mentioned in the rule that was derived from calcs.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
it more or less just argues we should change the size because someone found evidence of it being larger
Click to expand...
......No?

It seems like you're misunderstanding what i'm saying in the OP, i'm not trying to remove the rule entirely or change just because we found evidence of it being larger, i'm saying we currently accept the Seireitei as another size compared to the one stated in the rule, which means it needs to be change to match our current calculation.

I linked evidence in the OP which proves it's the current, accepted calculation, hell i'll even link the verse page which has the calculation on it as well.
 
IMadeThisOn8-1-2017 said:
Evidence was found of it being larger and a CRT was already made and accepted of the larger size. It's also more than just "evidence", we have a canon size statement that is being used now instead of the previous size mentioned in the rule that was derived from calcs.
Click to expand...
Deceived3596 said:
......No?

It seems like you're misunderstanding what i'm saying in the OP, i'm not trying to remove the rule entirely or change just because we found evidence of it being larger, i'm saying we currently accept the Seireitei as another size compared to the one stated in the rule, which means it needs to be change to match our current calculation.

I linked evidence in the OP which proves it's the current, accepted calculation, hell i'll even link the verse page which has the calculation on it as well.
Click to expand...
@Mr._Bambu
 
Deceived3596 said:
......No?

It seems like you're misunderstanding what i'm saying in the OP, i'm not trying to remove the rule entirely or change just because we found evidence of it being larger, i'm saying we currently accept the Seireitei as another size compared to the one stated in the rule, which means it needs to be change to match our current calculation.

I linked evidence in the OP which proves it's the current, accepted calculation, hell i'll even link the verse page which has the calculation on it as well.
Click to expand...
I reread what I wrote, I don't know how you found it to "seem" like that. I'm aware of what you folks have done- you've made a CRT to change the size, and it was accepted, and now want that reflected in the rule that says "do not make CRTs to change this thing". So, personally, I find that pretty wacky, and ain't comfortable with accepting such a rule change, as it seems the rule is made explicitly to protect against that.

To be absolutely clear: I am fully conscious of the fact that you have this calc accepted, nobody is confused on that front, homie.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
I reread what I wrote, I don't know how you found it to "seem" like that. I'm aware of what you folks have done- you've made a CRT to change the size, and it was accepted, and now want that reflected in the rule that says "do not make CRTs to change this thing". So, personally, I find that pretty wacky, and ain't comfortable with accepting such a rule change, as it seems the rule is made explicitly to protect against that.

To be absolutely clear: I am fully conscious of the fact that you have this calc accepted, nobody is confused on that front, homie.
Click to expand...
The new size was accepted because it brought forth new author statement information that didn't break the rule... but the rule needs to go or change regardless because it is objectively incorrect as the size isn't 509.3 km in radius anymore.

Like if you acknowledge the size has been updated, then you must acknowledge the rule is outdated, because the rule mentions an outdated size that isn't used.

Furthermore, did you miss the part of the rule that said don't change the size UNLESS new info is presented? Like if the size changed that must mean new info was presented, and therefore the rule doesn't apply to discrediting the upgrade. But regardless, the size changed, the old rule has misinformation now.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
"do not make CRTs to change this thing". So, personally, I find that pretty wacky, and ain't comfortable with accepting such a rule change, as it seems the rule is made explicitly to protect against that
Click to expand...
Deceived3596 said:
Any future revisions concerning the size of the Seireitei should wait for additional evidence from the likes of databooks, adaptations, Word of God, etc. which could affect our current understanding of the Seireitei
Click to expand...
It seems like you missed this part of the rule.

The Fade to Black statement affected our current understanding of the Seireitei's size, causing to gain a different size and radius to our previously accepted one, which is why it needs to be changed to fit our current understanding of the Seireitei's size.

That's everything which needs to be changed with the rule, it still retains its original measure as it still disallows people from changing the Seireitei's size without having additional, new information.
 
Last edited:
It sure seems like a lot of things. It's so fun to be in threads where it is presumed you are not talking about the thing you are, in fact, talking about.

I'm curious, Arc, you're mentioning an author statement. I'm going to assume these are the same ones posted in the blog linked in OP. I'm led to believe that the older statements regarding this place's size are from an in-universe perspective (correct me if I'm wrong). Now, were we to assume that I've read anything in this thread (VERY LARGE ASSUMPTION, I KNOW, FOR ALL ONLOOKERS PINING TO IMPLY THIS DEVIOUS DEVILRY AS TRUTH!), could I ask why it is we'd be using an authorial statement over an in-universe statement?
 
The rule was made in response to the multiple vague in-universe statements that gave us an idea of the size. However, they would need to be calc'd which lead to differing results and interpretations of how to accept these in-universe statements.

This is why the rule was made in the first place. We agreed to settle on one calc that seemed the most accurate.

Why this CRT is made is because a new in-universe statement actually gives us a direct size without the need to assume numbers to determine a size. We have an actual size (it is not an author statement).

The rule is now outdated, it's already contradicted by our newly accepted size from a more accurate in-universe statement that actually gave us a size.

Therefore, the rule must be removed or updated because the rule is now incorrect with our accepted size being above it.

This would be like if we had a rule that said Superman can't be above country level unless new evidence comes forth and then new evidence actually comes forth saying Superman is above country level. Do you understand now?
 
IMadeThisOn8-1-2017 said:
The rule was made in response to the multiple vague in-universe statements that gave us an idea of the size. However, they would need to be calc'd which lead to differing results and interpretations of how to accept these in-universe statements.

This is why the rule was made in the first place. We agreed to settle on one calc that seemed the most accurate.

Why this CRT is made is because a new in-universe statement actually gives us a direct size without the need to assume numbers to determine a size. We have an actual size (it is not an author statement).

The rule is now outdated, it's already contradicted by our newly accepted size from a more accurate in-universe statement that actually gave us a size.

Therefore, the rule must be removed or updated because the rule is now incorrect with our accepted size being above it.

This would be like if we had a rule that said Superman can't be above country level unless new evidence comes forth and then new evidence actually comes forth saying Superman is above country level. Do you understand now?
Click to expand...
I understand, but I'd like you to bring me some evidence of these vague statements/that this is what it's based on (the specific thread would be excellent). I'll remind you that I am not a weebverse admin. If this is true, then I can agree to the rule being removed, though in the future I think it'd be faster to just provide this intel from the outset when dealing with one such as I, rather than presuming I hadn't read what information was provided.
 
0076-014.png
0076-015.png


Chapter 76

Within this calc it proves we previously used these statements to gain a size, the assumptions we made etc. Here's the thread which discussed the multiple ways to interpret Seireitei's size, ranging from pixel scaling to calculations, it was agreed upon after much debate that the calculation end was the most consistent with the narrative in regards to the Seireitei's size, and finally this is the thread which removed the calc for a more direct statement about the size, which is innately better than assumption filled calculations.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Guacamolefletcher
  • Locked
New Bleach discussion rule - formally ruling against the non-canon film
Replies
22
Views
2K
IdiosyncraticLawyer
IdiosyncraticLawyer
PrinceofPein
  • Locked
Discussion Rule for Record of Ragnarok
Replies
31
Views
2K
Dereck03
Dereck03
ImmortalDread
  • Locked
Most Important Discussion Rule Section - Staff Thread Creation Guidelines
2
Replies
63
Views
5K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Kisaragi_Megumi
Indonesian Gang Discussion Thread (English Only)
Replies
14
Views
1K
Rendynoc0unter
Rendynoc0unter
IdiosyncraticLawyer
  • Locked
Franchise-specific discussion rules revamp
Replies
29
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top