• 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.

Vs battles wiki pet peeves

Status
Not open for further replies.
High-low sounds like a better tier than low-High yet it's the exact opposite
You're just too focused on the first word. They're like that because it's the correct way of saying them.

High-Low means someone is high up in the lower tiers.

Low-High level is the opposite. This means someone is down low in the higher tiers.

You wouldn't call someone who is high up in the lower tiers as Low-High, since that makes no sense.

As someone who's been involved with tier lists for a long time, maybe it's obvious to me. But I don't have any issues with it.
 
You're just too focused on the first word. They're like that because it's the correct way of saying them.

High-Low means someone is high up in the lower tiers.

Low-High level is the opposite. This means someone is down low in the higher tiers.

You wouldn't call someone who is high up in the lower tiers as Low-High, since that makes no sense.

As someone who's been involved with tier lists for a long time, maybe it's obvious to me. But I don't have any issues with it.
High-low can also mean someone is a high tier but is on the low side of that tier and since high is the first word, people would generally associate it with a higher tier than something that starts with low , but meh, i can see your point


it's less confusing now at least
 
Depending on the verse you're invested in, it really sucks to that it has so much anti-feats which eventually it's always going to get downplayed and will never actually get any upgrades
D&D is 9-C because its just guys with swords :)
 
I long for the day when fans of verses will channel their love of a series into accuracy of tiers rather than inflation. Today is not that day.
how about using a system of low end mid end high end just like you do with calcs?

take a verse's anti feats and make them the bare minimum of where a verse actually stands, make the the low end scaling

then use the verse's reasonable feats where you ignore the anti feats used the in the low end and just focus on indexing the verse, pretty much like what the wiki is doing now, that would be the mid end

then make a page where you wank scale the verse as high as you possibly can, as in taking the feats in it and scaling them to their highest ends possible, that would be the high end


...yeah, just typing that made me realize it ain't happening as the work needed to do implement it is way too much, but cool idea at least and i am not deleting this after taking this much time typing it


have a good day y'all
 
You could easily fake scans for any foreign texts
How often is someone gonna read a random chapter of a story they have never touched before, just to check if OP is bluffing?
I agree. That's why I believe that every feat should be cited, specially in CRTs. I've seen it several times that feats from media in other languages doesn't have proper citations that opponents can go ahead and read the context to see if they agree or not. I find it to be intentionally misleading to not have citations or refuse to give them.
 
There is already a rule. You are obligated as a creator of CRT to cite the sources. This goes to the profiles in fandom as well.
Putting fake scans and lying about the sources in the CRT (revising an unknown, foreign novel nobody has read):
billy-gachi.gif
 
Honestly it feels easy asl to parrot an FRA. I would think its best to make the standard “Must specify why they agree in their own words” though this is a 2099 take some people can get or im tripping 🤷‍♂️
 
Honestly it feels easy asl to parrot an FRA. I would think its best to make the standard “Must specify why they agree in their own words” though this is a 2099 take some people can get or im tripping 🤷‍♂️
But then it would just be even harder to scroll down with even more arguments to properly go over and it kinda bloats threads that way
 
FRA is kind of a necessary evil, because you could interpret a lot of them (perhaps correctly) to mean "I didn't read everything, but I agree with this point, despite acknowledging my incomplete knowledge", but they exist so nobody has to type up a damn thesis for a point that's already been more or less formed.

A lot of people can abuse them and spite/bias/what have you definitely occurs in a lot of scenarios, but the alternative is decidedly worse, as it would neutralize a lot of people's willingness to engage in a CRT or Versus Debate or what have you. Removing them wouldn't even solve the issue- if you really want to be a spiteful little shit, it's not that hard to then say "I agree with Bambu when he says that Peppino Pizza Tower should win against Sans Undertale because Peppino is turbo uber based while Sans is [slur word]"- just quote the actual argument and you effectively satisfy your requirement, without just saying "FRA"- all that's changed is an addition of effort that I suspect many would not be willing to take.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top