• 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.

Versus Thread Removal Requests 15

Status
Not open for further replies.
Andytrenom said:
Reverting votes?
Click to expand...
The issue at hand, which was not solved (and also most likely won't be), was vote counts. That was not at all properly debated, and removing the thread before a conclusion was reached is quite hasty. Blaming Weekly for reverting a pre-emptive edit is unfair; the changes should of only been made once a decision was reached.

...though it doesn't really matter, since the new thread picked up a lot of steam. So we're just adding the results of that.
 
It shouldn't have been added before the matter of the OP not counting the vote was actually addressed and decided by people to be incorrect or not. The tally was still 7-5 and hence invalid to add for that reason, it needed to be removed because it shouldn't have been added in the first place
 
The OP can't ignore votes that were based on valid reasoning; whether the reasoning was valid or not was subject to debate, albeit extremely repetitive debate.
 
Ignoring votes isn't the same as rejecting votes that have been debunked, and from his perspective it was. And that's why it was important to actually address the matter before adding the matches, instead of just pretending the vote count was something it wasn't
 
Personally, the vote was completely fine to add. The reasoning had nothing wrong with it. The real point of contention was Gyro's vote, which apparently came in after grace.

Removing it before the issue was properly solved was the incorrect move here. Weekly is not at fault for undoing it; the person who removed it originally is.
 
Yeah personally, while the guy tallying the votes found it incorrect after it being legitimately refuted by several people. Once again, a vote that isn't counted isn't something you just assume is valid, you should actually have to get it agreed that it is valid in the thread itself, that much should be common sense.

I disagree, I know what the rules regarding the match additions are and what was officially the final tally went against it, I have reasons for removing it and as for doing things before a conclusion is reached, that's exactly what adding the match on the premise of it being 8-5 vote count was
 
And those people who 'legitimately refuted' were similarly refuted. The OP can't just choose to not count votes without a very, very good reason to. And in this situation, the situation was muddy, hours went by, and the vote was clear. Gyro's vote came in; that's another topic. That's the point of actual discussion. It should be common sense that OPs can't simply decide who can vote and who can't on a dime.

The discussion wasn't over. How can one be mad at Weekly for undoing a change before a decision was reached, if it was removed before a decision was reached? You had your 'reasons' for removing it... and Weekly had plenty of reasons to undo it. So to get mad at Weekly yet ignore the elephant in the room of removing a match before the issue was properly discussed is quite a double standard.

You removed it on the premise of it not being 8-5; it being 8-5 was a point of debate. And that debate was not finished. So to simply say it wasn't 8-5 as a reason for removal is misleading and false, as the point was far from finished- both Cal's and Gyro's votes were not properly discussed, and on face value, so it should of been 8-5. Unless we're taking the precedent that we assume votes are invalid, instead of valid, while discussing such. Which is some odd inverse of "innocent until proven guilty", I must say.
 
Ignoring? I explained my reasonings for removing the matches and just because you think I'm in the wrong doesn't mean I am ignoring things I did, I am willing to admit that undoing Weekly's second edit instead of just discussing things may have been a bad move, but removing a match where the final vote wasn't even counted was completely justified from my perspective.

You know what, believe what you want, you are accusing me of things like being misleading when coming in here and just saying there was a 8-5 tally is exactly that, you accuse me of being hasty when a rejected vote got used by someone to add an otherwise invalid match, without even getting it properly accepted first, and I never said I was angry at Weekly, frustrated maybe but not angry. believe me I'm not above admitting my mistakes, but I have seen nothing from your points that actually convince me I was in the wrong here, and part of what you say honestly just comes off as ironic and presumptious
 
Presumptuous is the wrong word probably but you acting like I'm just trying to ignore my actions and getting mad at Weekly is definitely wrong
 
The presumptions made here, Andy, are regarding the interpretation of the votes. If we assume a vote is valid until proven not, the match should of originally been added; what happens after that, however, depends. If you disagree, sure, it's a fair interpretation, even if I personally disagree with you. But on the same note, that would mean Weekly's fine to interpret it the opposite way and re-add it.

The argument of 8-5 was based on if the vote was invalid or not. You believe it was; I do not, and Weekly did not. So you removed it, and Weekly brought it back. Discussion should of been had, from both sides. The issue is not that you believe that you were correct, or that Weekly believes he was correct. It was that all of this happened without proper discussion. My argument is not that either is "wrong", but that being only critical of Weekly's decision isn't fair when both sides made similar choices. I hope that, now, we can agree on that.

Regarding discussion, though. Admittedly, it is now happening in the new thread. So, everything worked out after all. Regardless of who wins, I'm fine with the outcome.
 
Yeah, i think debating this here now is kinda pointless when the new thread is happening
 
Andytrenom said:
Presumptuous is the wrong word probably but you acting like I'm just trying to ignore my actions and getting mad at Weekly is definitely wrong
Click to expand...
I apologize, then. I could of worded better. To restate, I simply believe that neither side is wrong here, and it was an issue of miscommunication more than all. Admittedly, that original thread was... very difficult to read.
 
I just think whether you interpret a vote to be valid or not, if rejected by the OP his decision should be argued in the thread itself, not just completely ignored by one person and added to the profiles. That's my only problem, I don't care if the vote is good or not, it being rejected by the OP is just something to actually resolve properly before using it in my opinion

But okay, I'm fine with just leaving it for the time being
 
I am a bit more cautious of such, given that some OPs don't fully read their own thread, or have bias, so giving them the end-all-be-all of being able to count all votes regardless of discussion or validity worries me, although I can see your point. Given that this is an issue of interpreting whether the OP can do that, I am of the opinion that removing it nor re-adding it was wrong, given the context. So I hope there are no hard feelings.

Seems like Garou's winning the rematch, though.
 
The issue would be that it wouldn't be giving a be-all end-all amount of power, would just give cause for discussing the validity of the decision. I doubt anyone would think of just listening to the OP without using their critical thinking, and if they did, then that's another problem entirely that may need looking into.

By the way, were the matches that Ce221 brought up looked at? Didn't see any response to it.
 
Sadistic Sleuth said:
Bill Cipher's loss against Vriska Serket needs to be removed, due to how Vriska's key that was used is now 2-A, no longer Low 2-C
I already removed it from Vriska's page, but Bill's page is locked
Click to expand...
I agree so I will remove it.
 
MagicCloud6 said:
(Reposting from previous thread)
Alien X vs Darkrai should be removed as it is a stomp for several reasons

Click to expand...
 
Isn't Space-time manipulation applicable because Alien X reverse the flow of time to fix a broken dam in its first appreance: https://youtu.be/b5BbLs79imQ?t=22 . I think it is.

Then, again, it should not change much since Darkrai already resisted the abilities of the creation trio which have abilities like sptatial manipulation and Time Manipulation.

I agree with the other stomp reasons so I will removed the match.
 
The following matched of Spongebob should be removed

Peter Griffin (Family Guy) Peter's profile (Spongebob could breathe on land and was the same size as Peter)

Peter had no way to bypass Mid-High Regen, also from that match he gained new powers and became 9-A, so it's outdated too

SCP-173 (SCP Foundatio) SCP-173's profile (Speed was equalized and Spongebob was the same size as SCP-173)

SCP-173 has no way to bypass Mid-High regen

Mr. Burns (The Simpsons) Mr. Burns' profile (Spongebob was 10-C, could breathe on land and was at his normal height)

Mid-High regen, nuff said

Lincoln Loud (The Loud House) Lincoln's profile (SpongeBob was 9-B, both were bloodlusted and speed was equalized)

Stomp because Mid-High regen AGAIN

K.O. (OK K.O.! Let's Be Heroes) K.O's profile (Both were 9-B and speed was equalized)

FFS people, why can't you read the profiles, Spongebob has Mid-High Regen

Ash Ketchum (Pokémo) Ash's profile (Both were 9-B and bloodlusted, speed was equalized, and SpongeBob was the same size of a human)

Spongebob very much hax stomps since Ash's only win con is Sealing via Pokeballs, which is easilly counter with Duplication or just dodging.

Also Spongebob having Plot Manipulation for sure doesn't help the match being less of a stomp

Also also Spongebob One Shots via AP advantage
 
Stillwinston said:
Okay so I looked at Eternal Champion's profile, his matches with Triborg and Quan Chi will need to be removed due to MK downgrades
Click to expand...
True. I will removed it.

Edit: Done
 
Pretty much all of Tohka Yatogami's matches need to be removed now as she underwent through some massive upgrades in terms of abilities including combat applicable type 8
 
Don't mind me, just posting some Arthur fleck matches that need to get out-

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/3577811

Reasons for voting for Arthur have been debunked.

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/3573505

Reasons for Arthur have once again been debunked by Matthew

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/3608352

Again, reasons have been debunked.

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/3600680

Joker had his gun giving him a massive range stomp that was very clearly put much more in favor of the joker. Vanilla ice literally cannot close the distance, therefor he can't do anything, therefor it's a stomp.

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/3570977

Reasons for the joker have been debunked as well with Sweet Tooth's experience against people way more skilled and competent than Arthur being completely ignored.

The Joker (Arthur Fleck)
 
All these matches should definitely be removed. Half of the people there are borderline superhumans in certain areas whereas Fleck has a normal human QuickDraw. Flecks wins have been some of the stupidest shit I have ever seen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

AThe1412
Can you restrict a character's Standard Equipment if it gives them a different tier?
Replies
2
Views
549
TheGreatJedi13
TheGreatJedi13
YmTheSuper
Location dependent abilities
Replies
2
Views
229
Homie890
Planck69
  • Locked
Touhou Thread Rule Removal
2
Replies
56
Views
5K
Planck69
Planck69
ArachDusa
Versus matches for weapons?
Replies
5
Views
1K
XSOULOFCINDERX
XSOULOFCINDERX
H3110l12345I20
The Slender Mythos General Discussion Thread
Replies
4
Views
338
H3110l12345I20
H3110l12345I20
Back
Top