• 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.

Yes, it is the Power Graph chart calculation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, you keep moving me to neutral, even though I have repeatedly stated that I agree with this, so I am not sure if you mishandle any other votes as well
I only moved you to neutral once because you did agree with @Qawsedf234 because he mentioned he is neutral overall on whatever or not the calc should been applied or not.
 
Also when did you repeatedly say you agree with this? Even that does overlook the fact I am also confused on what exactly is your stance as it doesn’t address the counter arguments anyway.

Edit: Never mind.
 
Last edited:
Also while I am at this, we currently have two staff members that is actually unclear on what exactly is their stance overall as the debate was mostly between regular members, @Agnaa , @Ayewale , @GodlyCharmander, and @Tago238 plus some other members here that actually make the voting tally a bit difficult to go through as I have to sort out the regular members and staff members opinions.
 
Anyway, even though I would personally prefer if this upgrade is applied, we unfortunately do not seem to have achieved nearly sufficient support for doing so.

@Ultima_Reality

Would you be willing to make an attempt to convince other staff members here of this revision? If not, we seem to have reached a stalemate, and that is obviously not enough to apply this.
We've reached a stalemate on the original proposition, but a "possibly 3-C" rating is still in the ballpark considering the counterarguments and arguments have both reached a point in which it's based on "what is the most likely" and "the author probably did...."
I would be open to having more discussion on this outcome, since at this point I agree that a solid 3-C rating is impossible, thanks to some arguments by Charmander and Agnaa, but I am quite certain that the 3-C should be represented on the profile as a likely possibility
 
We've reached a stalemate on the original proposition, but a "possibly 3-C" rating is still in the ballpark considering the counterarguments and arguments have both reached a point in which it's based on "what is the most likely" and "the author probably did...."
I would be open to having more discussion on this outcome, since at this point I agree that a solid 3-C rating is impossible, thanks to some arguments by Charmander and Agnaa, but I am quite certain that the 3-C should be represented on the profile as a likely possibility
I agree with possibly concept.
 
I would be open to having more discussion on this outcome, since at this point I agree that a solid 3-C rating is impossible, thanks to some arguments by Charmander and Agnaa, but I am quite certain that the 3-C should be represented on the profile as a likely possibility

I did consider offering something like this a few posts ago, but I still take too much issue with the intentionality to readily agree with that.
 
you know you're still doing the thing where "because I said it, then it must be true"
Again, I going by the fact we were told explicitly in Chapter 168 in the manga, that Saitama was growing exponentially strong and then no one will been able to measure his actual growing strength. You acting like I don’t have the evidence to back it up when I clearly posted scans and evidence in this thread multiple times.
 
Again, I going by the fact we were told explicitly in Chapter 168 in the manga, that Saitama was growing exponentially strong and then no one will been able to measure his actual growing strength. You acting like I don’t have the evidence to back it up when I clearly posted scans and evidence in this thread multiple times.
this isn't even a counterpoint, what the hell does him growing exponentially strong debunk about the graph showing exponential growth
sorry but if you keep this up then I can't really see myself taking your points seriously
 
this isn't even a counterpoint, what the hell does him growing exponentially strong debunk about the graph showing exponential growth
sorry but if you keep this up then I can't really see myself taking your points seriously
The fact you don’t understand where the opposition is coming from completely is actually getting a bit redundant.

Also it is a point in the fact there is no official multipliers stated in any of the scans and evidence which was pointed out to you by @GodlyCharmander and @Agnaa for that matter.
 
The fact you don’t understand where the opposition is coming from completely is actually getting a bit redundant.

Also it is a point in the fact there is no official multipliers stated in any of the scans and evidence which was pointed out to you by @GodlyCharmander and @Agnaa for that matter.
something which had also been done to death
even several staff agree that a narration provided image of a multiplier is effectively the same as a statement, especially since the standard was clearly not intended to restrict a situation like this
 
Chill out and stop repeating arguments.

Ziller's aware that there's no direct statement of a multiplier; the people who support using the chart think that the chart's enough.

(Also, Ziller, you may have missed this post I made just before one of yours)
 
Pointing out that multiple staff members disagree does not contradict Ziller's point that multiple staff members agree.

Can we just leave this for more evaluations instead of repeating the same 3 points 600 times?
 
Pointing out that multiple staff members disagree does not contradict Ziller's point that multiple staff members agree.

Can we just leave this for more evaluations instead of repeating the same 3 points 600 times?
Yes, but only like 4 staff members agree off memory.
That is off by one anyway.
 
HammerStrikes219, please stop spamming nearly every single thread that you participate in. Systematically turning many of them time-wasting and incomprehensible is the main reason why we had to ban you several years ago.
While fair, I don’t recall that many as Sera was also involved in that too IIRC.

Other than that, if we don’t get anymore consensus, we have to do something for a rating on Saitama’s profile.
 
Okay, but please keep your posts to just what is relevant, and stop repeating yourself over and over in the future.
 
Chill out and stop repeating arguments.

Ziller's aware that there's no direct statement of a multiplier; the people who support using the chart think that the chart's enough.

(Also, Ziller, you may have missed this post I made just before one of yours)
yeah, I actually did see that one and just didnt get around to responding to it
I actually need to think about the best way I can go about this for a moment, since of course debating about author intentions can get a bit difficult, outside of the arguments I've already put out I'm not sure about this one yet
also I'm gaming, so I'll need a moment
 
I will try, but you know I have two mental conditions of being a ADHD and autism person.

Still I will see what I can do on my end.
So do I, but through hard work I keep it under much better control. You cannot derail everything you participate in, and take up many hours of time with completely unnecessary work for other members every day.
 
So do I, but through hard work I keep it under much better control. You cannot derail everything you participate in, and take up many hours of time with completely unnecessary work for other members every day.
Can we just do DMs on this wiki? I did not appreciate the fact I feel regret over my past actions because of that.
 
We can send private messages to other members in this forum, yes, but I do not have the time to spend on you right now, especially if you will talk for hours. Sorry.
 
Anyway, here is the current consensus

Should this calc been accepted in regard to multiplers and exponential growth?

Edit: Tally updated again.

Disagree with the calc’s multiplers specifically: @DontTalkDT, @Andytrenom,
@Jasonsith,

Agree with it: @KLOL506, @Ultima_Reality, @Phoenks, @Antvasima

Neutral: @Qawsedf234 (Say he is neutral, but is fine with the calc being used) @Maverick_Zero_X

Unclear: @CrimsonStarFallen (Did agree with specific points made by regular members, but also didn’t elaborate if they agree with the calc or not due to confusing stances between regular members)
@Damage3245 (Didn’t elaborate if he agree with it or not due to one of the more recent reply)
Here is the current consensus aside from us derailing the thread with specific topics that comes up.
 
Well, it doesn't seem like this will be accepted then, so I suppose that we should close this thread.

You are not allowed to participate if somebody else brings up this topic in another thread, as it would be completely derailed again.

Also, if you continue to constantly spam nonsense that wastes the time of other members, we will unfortunately likely have to ban you again, out of consideration for said other members.
 
Well, it doesn't seem like this will be accepted then, so I suppose that we should close this thread.

You are not allowed to participate if somebody else brings up this topic in another thread, as it would be completely derailed again.

Also, if you continue to constantly spam nonsense that wastes the time of other members, we will unfortunately likely have to ban you again, out of consideration for said other members.
In this thread, I was actually technically repeating the same points. Not derailing the thread, just spamming points from the opposition and I do apologize for that as I actually did repeatedly say that throughout this thread
 
Well, it doesn't seem like this will be accepted then, so I suppose that we should close this thread.
What about the suggestion that Agnaa once suggested? With possible rating, it would make fair to everyone.
Also, it is just that most people don't want to comment anymore. And I think most of the calculation group members already accept it.
 
Only off by 1s. We have to take into consideration of those unclear or neutral actions.
For the Neutrals, Qaws is okay with it being used. Mav is completely neutral.

For the Unclears, Crimson more likely agrees than disagree due to agreeing with those who agree. Damage no idea.
 
What about the suggestion that Agnaa once suggested? With possible rating, it would make fair to everyone.
Also, it is just that most people don't want to comment anymore. And I think most of the calculation group members already accept it.
No, @ZillertheBucko suggest it first.
I would be open to having more discussion on this outcome, since at this point I agree that a solid 3-C rating is impossible, thanks to some arguments by Charmander and Agnaa, but I am quite certain that the 3-C should be represented on the profile as a likely possibility

I did consider offering something like this a few posts ago, but I still take too much issue with the intentionality to readily agree with that.
 
For the Neutrals, Qaws is okay with it being used. Mav is completely neutral.

For the Unclears, Crimson more likely agrees than disagree due to agreeing with those who agree. Damage no idea.
I have to inform Crimson about it as they only agree with two other regular members points which I also not too sure on.
 
More staff have agreed to it than disagreed.
Yes, but not to a sufficient degree to reach a consensus.

However, given that this thread was spammed and derailed so much, no proper discussion was possible to be had, so if somebody recreates the thread, HammerStrikes219 is thread-banned from it, and all of the staff members who responded here are reinvited to participate, that might be an acceptable solution.
 
Yes, but not to a sufficient degree to reach a consensus.

However, given that this thread was spammed and derailed so much, no proper discussion was possible to be had, so if somebody recreates the thread, HammerStrikes219 is thread-banned from it, and all of the staff members who responded here are reinvited to participate, that might be an acceptable solution.
May I do it? If you give me permission, I am free to create CRT and insert all necessary information.
 
Yes, but not to a sufficient degree to reach a consensus.

However, given that this thread was spammed and derailed so much, no proper discussion was possible to be had, so if somebody recreates the thread, HammerStrikes219 is thread-banned from it, and all of the staff members who responded here are reinvited to participate, that might be an acceptable solution.
Tbf, we were having a debate on whatever or not the multipliers is acceptable or not too.
 
I would prefer if a staff or very experienced member handles it, so no mistakes are made this time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top