Discussion Rules

Introduction

VS Battles Wiki is a site where the members attempt to index the statistics of characters across different fictional franchises. These efforts lead to much discussion about certain feats, statements and calculations regarding their validity, reliability, etc.

However, certain topics keep popping up repeatedly, generally made by new members, despite being discussed and resolved multiple times in the past. The managing staff has grown weary of continuously settling the more controversial issues to rest again and again, and hence have listed a few rules, to limit redundant discussions.

The listed rules are to be followed for discussions (forums), in addition to the site rules.

General Discussion Rules

Before making a thread, first check if the topic has been handled previously. You can do so by clicking here and searching for a specific verse or character page title. We have also added "related discussions" links to our new forum at the bottom of our verse and character profile pages. If using the talk sections of this wiki's character profile pages, please sign with your username at the end of your posts, by adding four "~" signs.

• Before starting to argue in our forums, please read the logical fallacies page.
• When creating new discussion threads in the external forum, it is required that our members add the relevant previously existing tags to them, for example, the verse and most prominent characters that will be discussed during a content revision. If something goes wrong, and you need to add or change the tags of a certain thread, please ask our thread moderators or administrators for help. For further information click here.
  • Only add tags that are directly relevant to the discussion threads. This includes the names of verses and characters for which revisions are being argued about. However, do not add mostly unrelated tags, such as for instruction or policy pages, unless the contents of the pages themselves are being discussed. Otherwise, it will get hard to find important older discussions for each particular subject. Click here for further information.
• You should use the "Watched threads" page to better keep track of your watched threads; the ones with new replies have bold text.
• Please avoid creating image-sharing threads featuring characters that you find attractive. This is because they often lead from friendly fun to sexualized drawings of minors or otherwise get out of hand into NSFW areas.
• Please do not bump topics that have been inactive for over 3 months without a legitimate argument, and entirely avoid bumping topics that have been concluded. However, we make exceptions for versus threads. There is no exact time limit as long as the characters in question are not outdated.
• To use images on the forum, you must use image upload sites such as Imgur, ImgBB, etcetera, and link the URL of the image that ends with .png, .jpg, .jpeg or .gif by using the IMG code. It likely won't work if you simply use the URL for the page on which the image is hosted. Given that Fandom seems to disallow hotlinking to its hosted images from external sites, doing so in our forum either won't work or will significantly reduce their displayed size. However, you can still link to wiki images in the following manner: [vs]File:VS Battles Main Image 3.png[/vs]
• Our News and Announcements subforum is intended to feature crucial site-wide announcements, ranging from new staff memberships to changes in indexing standards, or other important topics that directly concern our wiki and community as a whole. Topics regarding deaths of prominent actors or authors, major recent entertainment media releases, or similar should usually be posted in our General Discussion subforum, as they do not directly concern the running of our wiki in itself.
• Threads that encourage or revolve around mocking other users, even in a friendly and humorous spirit, such as "slander" threads and other such discussions are not permitted on the forum, due to their tendency to become toxic and misused as a venue for rude comments about other users.
• Using other members to circumvent bans or topic bans is prohibited. This includes sending unblocked members your arguments to secretly post in our forum on your behalf. Doing so may lead to an extension of your punishment, and a punishment may also be applied to that proxy member(s) who conveyed your arguments. Exceptions can be given for posting genuinely helpful revisions while openly admitting where they came from, but this needs to be evaluated by our staff before any arguments are posted.

Content Revision

General Revision Rules

The content revision process is an important aspect of maintaining the accuracy and quality of our series verse. Before making sweeping or significant changes to characters or verse pages, please start a thread in the Content Revision forum first, so that the suggestions may be evaluated by the Staff and the community at large, to ensure that they are acceptable.

• Content Revision Threads need to be supported by scans, quotes, video clips, accepted calculations, or any other direct proof that claimed events actually happened in the source material. In the absence of this evidence, CRTs may be closed without notice.
  • Evidence provided in CRTs must be verifiable. In the instance that evidence comes from material which is inaccessible, evidence can be considered verifiable if it can be attested to by an official source (for example: the creator of the material) or otherwise archived by a reputable source. Information that comes from inaccessible material that cannot be attested to by an official source or is not archived by a reputable source is not permitted for indexing.
• The opening post of a content revision thread has to include a clear summary in the opening post what major changes are being made so that everyone involved in the discussion will be on the same page. For example if an updated profile has been created in a sandbox with a new Power & Abilities section, then you should summarize or bullet point in the opening post the major changes that are being proposed so that people don't overlook them.
• When creating content revisions, it is essential to ensure that the topic has not been addressed previously. Rejected content revisions cannot be resubmitted within a short period of time (typically defined as within 3 to 4 months), except in cases where a staff member has a good reason to do so (e.g. important unconsidered information, violation of site standards, or flaws in a calculation). This only applies to threads that have received extensive debate or have been rejected due to a clear conflict with the wiki's rules or standards. If a thread passes or is rejected without significant opposition, then opposition should not be restricted from making a point.
• When arguing for changing character statistics, do not assume that the staff will have in-depth knowledge about the fictional franchise in question. Make sure to explain your suggestions in a structured manner that is easy to comprehend. You will not be allowed to change any statistics if people cannot understand what you mean.
  • To reiterate, when creating content revision threads, it is best to keep your suggestions as structured and simple to understand as possible, so the staff will have an easier time evaluating the text. Avoid writing upgrade threads mainly based on assumptions from a limited amount of information, with no additional context or evidence to support them.
• Generally try to avoid derailing content revision discussion threads from the original topic, We cannot deal with too many different subjects at once, so it is usually better to start a new thread instead.
• If you are creating a content revision thread that affects a particular verse, then you need to specify the name of that verse as part of the title of the thread so that other users can recognize what the revision thread in case the rest of the title is unclear. For example: "Post-Timeskip AP Revision (Naruto)".
  • For verse-specific threads, if the only opposing party does not reply for over 2 weeks without any notice or known/suspected extenuating circumstances, then the moderators should try to get the thread to completion without them, assuming that they'd probably not reply. However, their points should not be discarded, and this should not be treated as that user conceding. Their arguments and votes should be kept in mind while the thread goes on and anybody else is free to argue in their stead.
• Please refrain from creating content revision threads that consist solely of links to off-site sources (such as YouTube, Reddit, other VS forums, etc.) and have no discernible arguments of their own.
  • Many of these sources are not made with our specific standards in mind, lack proper source references, and may contain a lot of arguments that have already been discussed or are useless for the purpose of the relevant threads, which makes them hard to evaluate. As such, it is highly encouraged that when creating a content revision thread based on off-site sources, our members should specify their core arguments in detail with relevant evidence.
  • It is also acceptable to post such threads in the general discussion or questions and answers sections of our forum for discussion, rather than in the content revision section. Furthermore, adding a link to a respect thread or character analysis video with the intention of providing quick access to a large collection of feats is acceptable, but each of those feats should be analysed step by step to ensure that they are not presented out of context, and any calculation-dependent feats should be placed in wiki blog posts and evaluated by our calc group members to ensure sufficient accuracy.
• If there exist conflicting accepted calculations for the same feat, the calc group members should discuss which ones that are most reliable to use in their own forum. The calc group is free to ask for relevant information from reliable members, by using the knowledgeable members list for verses or the associated verse page list of supporters. After a decision has been reached, and the most reliable calculations have been selected, a discussion should be started in the content revision forum to decide which characters that should scale to the feats.

• Up to three active content revision threads can be open for any verse. If three active content revision threads are in progress, the community must conclude one before creating a new one.
  • Marvel Comics and DC Comics are exempt from this rule to accommodate their continuous flow of large amounts of story material. Thus, they may have a maximum of six active threads open simultaneously. This exception also applies to extremely popular verses like Dragon Ball, to be granted on a case-by-case basis.
  • If a recent content revision thread is unambiguously ill-considered and of poor quality, please ask a thread moderator or administrator to close it to provide room for more alternatives.
  • Content Revision threads become inactive after remaining idle for at least one month.

• A member may have up to four active content revision threads active at once, no more than two of which can be about the same verse.
• Do not add new topics to existing content revision threads mid-discussion unless they are closely intertwined issues that discussion can settle on the spot, as doing so clutters threads and makes evaluation difficult.

Approval of Revisions

In order to ensure that all revisions are thoroughly reviewed and approved, it is necessary for a minimum of two staff members to sign off on any proposed changes. The concluding evaluations must be handled by Thread Moderators, Administrators, and Bureaucrats, who should make an effort to base their evaluations on valid arguments, not personal opinions.

• It is essential that at least one staff member is present during any content revision process, as their expertise and knowledge of a verse will be instrumental in ensuring the integrity and accuracy of the revised material. Any suggested changes that do not meet the necessary approval standards will not be implemented.
  • In cases where the series verse has a significant following or a large amount of material has been published based on its content, it may be necessary to seek approval from a minimum of three staff members to ensure that all relevant parties are aware of and agree with the proposed revisions (Examples: Naruto, Marvel Comics, DC Comics, Dragon Ball, Devil May Cry, God of War, One Piece, Bleach).
    • It is important to note that this requirement should not be interpreted as a guarantee that the proposed revisions will be approved if a minimum of three staff members have given their approval. In cases involving big or controversial changes, or in situations where a verse is one where many of our staff members are knowledgeable, it may be advisable to involve as many staff members as possible in the review and approval process. This requirement is in place to ensure that revisions to popular or widely-recognized series verses are thoroughly reviewed and approved by a sufficient number of individuals with the necessary expertise and knowledge.
  • For content revisions that affect Tier 2 or higher, the participation of at least one Administrator in the review and approval process is required.
    • The Administrator(s) should provide their evaluations and input regarding the suggested revision, and their decision will be given significant weight in the final determination of approval.
  • The review and approval of content revisions that affect Tier 1 and/or Tier 0 ratings or that are highly controversial should preferably be conducted by a larger number of staff members in order to ensure that all relevant parties are aware of and agree with the proposed changes. It is essential that these revisions are evaluated by staff members who possess a reasonable level of genuine understanding and expertise in these areas in order to maintain the accuracy and quality of the revised material.
  • Input from highly respected members of the community, such as experts on the topic, should be taken into consideration when determining the necessary level of review and approval.
• Staff members and trusted knowledgeable members who do not have content revision thread evaluation rights are still encouraged to provide their insights and observations regarding suggested revisions.
  • To get better input in a content revision thread, inspect the knowledgeable members list for verses to get information about the people who know much about a franchise, and leave polite notices on their message walls that ask them to participate in the discussion. If staff members are present, they can also use the @Username command to send automatic notifications to others. However, this does not work for regular members.
    • There is also a knowledgeable members list for the terminology, standards, and concepts of this wiki, that you can use in the same manner.
  • The input and comments of these staff members and trusted knowledgeable members should be carefully considered by those with evaluation rights, and may influence the final decision regarding the approval of a content revision.
• For content revision suggestions, generally, a standard grace period of 48 hours should be allowed for the reviewing staff members to evaluate and approve them. However, in the case of extremely blatant, self-evident revisions, a grace period of 24 hours is acceptable. Until this grace period has elapsed, since the time of the thread's creation, the revision should not be applied to the profiles.
  • This is to ensure that all staff members have the opportunity to review the suggested revisions and provide their input, even if the initial explanation post in a content revision thread is quite large and complicated.

Minor Content Revisions

• Instances of minor revisions may include changes to one or two characters, if it is just the addition of simple abilities that do not fall into the categories of Acausality (except type 1), Conceptual Manipulation, Abstract Existence, Plot Manipulation, Information Manipulation, Causality Manipulation, Nonexistent Physiology, Law Manipulation, etc. or otherwise could be considered particularly controversial or noteworthy.
  • For minor revisions and self-evident revisions, it is sufficient to seek the approval of one staff member with evaluation rights.
    • This guideline is intended to prioritize the review and approval of more significant revisions and to allow for the efficient management of each content revision process. It is important to note that this guideline does not apply to revisions for popular or widely-recognized verses, or to revisions that significantly alter the overall structure or content of a verse.

Self-Approval of Content Revisions

• It is understood that there may be instances where a staff member has expertise or knowledge of a particular series that allows them to confidently approve a revision on their own. It is possible for a staff member to initiate a content revision thread and have their vote counted.
  • However, in cases of minor revisions where only one vote is needed, it is necessary for at least one other staff member to approve the thread before it can be implemented. This serves to ensure that all content additions, even those suggested by staff members, are subject to supervision and oversight.

Handling Disagreements

If a disagreement arises between staff members during the evaluation of a content revision thread, it is important to seek the input and guidance of additional staff members in order to reach a fair and unbiased decision. This may involve seeking the opinion of higher-ranked staff members, or consulting with staff members who possess specific expertise or knowledge related to the revision in question. The final decision on the approval of a content revision should be based on a thorough and unbiased evaluation of the suggested changes and their impact on a verse.

• It is important to remember that all staff members, regardless of their rank, have a responsibility to act in the best interests of each verse by prioritizing accuracy and quality above personal preferences or biases. Staff members should strive to approach the evaluation of content revision threads with an open mind and a willingness to consider the perspectives of others.
  • Ultimately, the final decision regarding the approval of a content revision should be based on a thorough and unbiased evaluation of the suggested changes and their impact on each verse, rather than on the rank or status of the staff members involved.

• Although the evaluation of each staff member carries equal weight, the final decision regarding the approval of a content revision may be influenced by other factors such as the expertise and knowledge of the staff members involved, the complexity and controversy of the revision, and the popularity or prominence of the affected series verse. In terms of decision-making authority, bureaucrats are given the highest consideration, followed by administrators, and then thread moderators.
  • Additionally, it is worth mentioning that Bureaucrats primarily have a lot of authority when it comes to major wiki policy changes, rather than regular content revision threads. Their authority in this regard may be restricted to specific areas.

Staff Forum Discussions

Permissions

• Only staff members and regular members staff have deemed highly trustworthy may participate in Staff Discussion threads unless an explicit exception is noted.
  • Only staff members with evaluation rights can authorize regular members to participate in Staff Discussion threads. Thread Moderators are able to grant permission for a single post at a time, whereas administrators can give permission for up to three. Bureaucrats are the only staff members that are allowed to give indefinite posting rights for a particular staff thread. If a staff member with evaluation rights determines that a regular member has misused their granted privileges, these can be removed.
  • It is important to note that only voluntarily retired staff members and members who've been accepted for a staff position in the past but dismissed the offer by choice, fall into the category of highly trustworthy. The majority of regular members who do not fall into the groups mentioned above are still in need of permission from staff members with evaluation rights.
• Community members seeking to create staff threads must adhere to the following guidelines:
  • Clearly specify in the thread title and opening post that they have obtained explicit permission from authorized staff members to create the thread.
  • Provide accurate and relevant information within the staff thread, ensuring it aligns with the purpose for which permission was granted.
• Authorization to create staff threads will be granted by administrators or bureaucrats.
  • If a staff member permits a regular member to create a Staff Discussion thread, the thread starter is automatically permitted to continue posting indefinitely there unless those rights are specifically revoked.
• Regular members may not comment on Staff Discussion threads marked as "Restricted solely for staff members" under any circumstances, as such discussions cover sensitive wiki policy issues and other similar crucial matters that require great caution.
• In controversial Staff Discussion threads that must avoid spam and unconstructive bickering, regular members are only allowed one highly relevant post each to prevent thread spamming/hijacking. Only Bureaucrats may make exceptions to this rule, which should only happen when they deem the user's expertise/information essential.

Staff Impact in Wiki Policy Revisions

Every staff member's input will be taken into consideration, with the level of influence determined by their expertise in the specific field of the thread. This ensures that staff members who have relevant knowledge and expertise in a particular subject are given more weight in the decision-making process, aligning the contributions with their areas of specialization.

• In wiki policy revision threads, bureaucrats have both voting and veto rights. Administrators also have voting rights, and all staff members are welcome to comment in these threads, regardless of whether they have evaluation rights or not.
• For changes that have a significant impact on the entire wiki, additional safeguards are in place. Only the most trusted and experienced staff members will evaluate the proposed courses of action. Please note that this version incorporates a universal veto, which allows any single staff member (bureaucrat) with veto power to block a proposed decision, even if it has the support of the majority.
• In the case of wiki policies concerning calculation instruction pages, calculation group members also have voting power, in addition to the voting and veto rights of bureaucrats and administrators.

Franchise-Specific Rules

Avatar: The Last Airbender Rules

• Do not attempt to downgrade the characters' speeds from Massively Hypersonic+ based on the claim that firebent lightning doesn't move as fast as natural lightning, as overwhelming evidence indicates the two are comparable.

Ben 10 Rules

• Do not attempt to downgrade Alien X from any argument pertaining to Atomic-X or Osmosians. We have dealt with such arguments many times over and over. Due to biological and DNA alteration, a very basic structure of a being, alteration of which, even if by a small percentage, can have vast differences, we cannot assume any scaling of powers and abilities between Atomic X and the parent DNA. Take, for example, Gwen and Ben. Both are a hybrid of Anodite and human, yet they do not automatically scale to regular Anodites. Pierce Wheels, despite being a hybrid of human and Argit DNA, doesn't have paralyzing venom in his sharp quills, unlike Argit. Another example would be the hybrid BigChuck. Despite being a Tokustar and Upchuck fusion, he was brought down by a few of Eon's human-sized minions two times when purebred Tokustars themselves could take on an entire army at any day and time.
• Do not attempt to create threads claiming Alien X is only the most powerful in hax abilities and not attack potency. While them being omnipotent can be argued to only apply toward a “high level of reality warping” abilities, it ends up being a semantics debate. It's highly unlikely that they're the most powerful only because they have absolute control over reality, considering that there is a warrior class of Celestialsapiens who rely on their physical might rather than hax. Even Professor Paradox is capable of such things, and this extends to being capable of destroying it all. This was never called or treated at the same level as a Celestialsapien's omnipotence. If further clarification is needed, read here or here.

Bleach Rules

• Do not attempt to upgrade Sosuke Aizen and Dangai Ichigo or give them Higher-Dimensional Existence based on Aizen describing their "transcendent" transformation as being akin to a 3D lifeform being superior to a 2D lifeform. This description metaphorically illustrates the power gap between them and other characters and doesn't suggest they literally possess a higher-dimensional lifeform's physiology.
• Do not attempt to change the accepted 785.45-kilometer size of the Seireitei based on visuals contradicting this size without new information, as the information obtained from author interviews is considered more reliable than those visuals.
• Do not attempt to upgrade Gremmy Thoumeaux based on his feat of creating outer space, as this feat, despite legitimately scaling to his statistics, is extremely inconsistent with his general performance and the feats of other characters on his level and is thus considered an outlier.

DC Comics Rules

• Do not attempt to upgrade the Sphere of the Gods to Low 1-A or above, as all such revisions have consistently failed (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). There is no evidence to support it having such a rating, and it and its inhabitants consistently demonstrate themselves as far weaker than that.
• Please refrain from creating revisions or making assumptions regarding Mandrakk's Plot Manipulation abilities based on vague references or lack of evidence. There is no indication in the comics that Mandrakk can alter the details of an existing narrative, change the past, or make decisions for characters in the story. All references to the story are metaphorical and made by beings who are trying to destroy the multiverse, and should be considered within their context. The Gentry/Empty Hand do not see the multiverse as fictional or have the ability to edit the story like an author. Therefore, any discussion about Mandrakk's plot manipulation abilities should be based on evidence from the comics and should avoid assumptions or unsupported claims.

Devil May Cry Rules

• Do not attempt to revise the statistics and abilities of characters based on scans from Version 1.0 of the mobile game Peak of Combat. This version is no longer accessible for any users, making scans from it highly subject to fabrication and difficult to verify as authentic. While evidence from Peak of Combat for Version 2.0 onwards is acceptable, members should analyze any such evidence with a reasonable degree of scrutiny.

DOOM Rules

• Do not attempt to downgrade Davoth from Low 1-C based on the argument that regaining his body didn't restore his power. Multiple discussion threads have repeatedly rejected this argument, as the evidence makes clear that it did; Davoth explicitly declared that he would destroy the reality he created, the Father stated he would regain his faculties alongside his body, and Samur Maykr received a buff that allowed him to survive against Doomguy from absorbing the Father's essence.

Dragon Ball Rules

• Do not attempt to upgrade characters in the Buu saga above 4-B based on them massively upscaling from Super Perfect Cell, as 4-B is an extremely broad tier with an upper border nearly a trillion times greater than its baseline, making an upgrade to a higher tier through mere powerscaling infeasible.
• Do not attempt to dispute Goku scaling above his Super Saiyan God form with the argument that he didn't maintain its power; the evidence makes clear that he did, and downgrade attempts have been repeatedly rejected.

Ichiban Ushiro no Daimaou Rules

• Do not attempt to downgrade the characters' ratings from Tier 1; the nature and details regarding the Reality-Fiction Hierarchies of this verse have seen frequent debates before (e.g. here, here, here, here, here & here), with various pieces of evidence compiled here. Debates regarding the topic have grown repetitive and tiresome.

Marvel Cinematic Universe Rules

• Do not attempt to dispute Captain Marvel scaling above Thanos using the argument that she only managed to overpower him by absorbing energy from the Infinity Gauntlet. Both the Avengers: Endgame script and editor Jeff Ford explicitly state that Carol is too powerful for Thanos to fight, and nothing indicates that Carol was absorbing energy from the Infinity Stones.

Marvel Comics Rules

• Do not attempt to scale base Thanos from the Phoenix Force, Galactus, the Celestials, and Odinforce Thor using the Thanos Returns and Thanos Wins storylines, as these fights are fairly typical extreme Plot-Induced Stupidity outliers; these story arcs also treated the Silver Surfer wielding Mjolnir as a threat to Thanos and had the Hulk survive his attacks when Galactus didn't.

Medaka Box Rules

• Do not try to upgrade Ajimu Najimi and Hanten Shiranui to unreasonably extreme degrees or use them in serious versus threads, as they originate in a metafictional parody manga revolving around deconstructing, circumventing, dissecting, and exaggerating plot conveniences that do not remotely make sense from a powerscaling perspective.

Minecraft Rules

• Do not use the End Poem as evidence in profiles, as based on an interview by its writer Julian Gough, extensive discussion has deemed it insufficient to prove potential ratings and too questionable in its legitimacy to be eligible as evidence for statistics and powers and abilities.

My Hero Academia Rules

• Do not attempt to upgrade Yuga Aoyama's Navel Laser Quirk to Speed of Light. It's consistently depicted as far slower than genuine lasers, having speeds on par with Class 1-A's other ranged attacks and properties not seen in lasers, such as remaining stationary and becoming a sword at will. Attempts to upgrade the characters' speeds based on this argument have failed repeatedly.

Naruto Rules

• Take care to evaluate Naruto databook descriptions on a case-by-case basis when using them for scaling, as these sources vary from consistent with the manga to questionable hyperbole.
• Do not attempt to give Truth-Seeking Balls Soul Manipulation due to Minato's soul losing arms alongside his Edo Tensei body from them, as extensive discussion regarding the topic deemed it a side effect of Truth-Seeking Balls nullifying the Edo Tensei ninjutsu's binding effect, thus only indirectly returning those parts of his soul to the Pure Land.
• The manga is treated as the primary source material while the anime and novels are considered secondary and tertiary source materials respectively. The tertiary canon status of the Boruto movie novelization was agreed upon in this thread. Information from the tertiary canon can only be used if the specific information doesn't contradict the primary and the secondary canon.
• Do not attempt to scale the Ninjutsu or physical stats of Kaguya Otsutsuki, as well as other characters that have been stated, shown, or implied by the narrative to be on her level or weaker, to the overtime capabilities of the Expansive Truth-Seeking Orb without new information provided by the series. The topic has been repeatedly discussed and rejected over the years and has been deemed contradictory to the context behind the ETSO's destruction of Kaguya's Dimension taking an unquantifiable amount of time and a large amount of chakra from the Shinobi trapped in Infinite Tsukuyomi, a portion of which was used to exponentially increase the physical stats of Kaguya. Not to mention the feat is inconsistent with other showings of power performed or stated by other characters in the verse that hold relative/superior power to Kaguya herself.

Nasuverse Rules

• Do not attempt to downgrade the Tier 1 ratings of Nasuverse characters. Its cosmology, consistency, and ratings have been debated heavily over the years, and attempts at downgrades have frequently been rejected before (Examples include: this, this and this. Threads that compile evidence for the tiers can be seen here and here). Debates over this have grown tiring, and proven to be a waste of time for all parties involved.

One Piece Rules

• Don't create threads to upgrade One Piece, based on Chinjao supposedly splitting an ice continent, until the story provides us with more evidence, and avoid using statements only to support it.
• Please do not try to scale Zoan Queen's attack potency to Big Mom by using their fight at Udon, as Queen did not inflict any real damage to Big Mom and was terrified that she would kill him. Not to mention that Big Mom only collapsed from exhaustion and not from Queen's Brachio Bomber.

One-Punch Man Rules

• Do not post threads or comments about Saitama being boundless, omnipotent, or a gag character who can never lose a fight. This line of reasoning is excessively illogical, incongruent with basic tiering standards, employs an extremely liberal use of no-limits fallacies, and defeats the purpose of indexing character statistics. Due to this particular issue's highly repetitive nature, failure to follow this rule may result in a block without warning.

Pokémon Rules

• Do not try to downgrade Arceus, the Creation Trio, and any characters scaling from them from 2-B/2-A based on Pokémon consistently below that level harming them. The established lore and their feats across the franchise solidly place these characters at 2-B/2-A, and extensive discussion deemed these anti-feats as Game Mechanics-induced Plot-Induced Stupidity.

Record of Ragnarok Rules

• Do not attempt to upgrade the characters of Record of Ragnarok to Universal levels of power without newly released information from the ongoing manga series or other canon sources, as that has been tried numerous times and rejected.

Star Wars Rules

• Do not attempt to upgrade Darth Vader from the Legends continuity to 4-B based on scaling from Darth Sidious, as discussions have repeatedly rejected the relevant arguments. First, although George Lucas stated in an interview that Vader had 80% of Sidious's power, this statement was only his opinion and doesn't account for the events of Dark Empire. Second, despite surviving a few seconds of Sidious's Force lightning, Vader took fatal damage too quickly to scale to its power, not to mention how Sidious was holding back his power to torture Luke.

Super Smash Bros. Rules

• Please do not attempt to establish Super Smash Bros. as canon in any way for the involved franchises. It completely fails to fulfill our canon crossovers requirements, as it obviously lacks sufficient solid interactions and references to the events in many of the canons to fit into their established continuities. To consider it as canon would require a great deal of assumptions to the point of borderline fanfiction. For further information, see here, and here.

Tokyo Revengers Rules

• To curb increasingly frequent behavioral rule violations and sockpuppetry issues with users primarily interested in this verse, members must have accounts registered for at least one year and at least 1000 forum messages before participating in revisions for it, and the verse's characters may not be used in versus threads. At their discretion, staff members intimately familiar with this verse may grant permission for productive users with less account history and/or posts to participate in revisions or disqualify suspicious and misbehaving members from participating independent of their account history and/or posts.
• Do not attempt to upgrade the characters' speeds above Supersonic without new evidence, as this suggestion has seen extensive debate here, here, here, here, here, and here, and Calculation Group members intervened to reject it every time. This prohibition stems from the extraordinary nature of these claims, and the discussions repeatedly led to increased harassment, toxicity, and drama that flooded the community with rule violation reports.

Toriko Rules

• Do not attempt to upgrade the Toriko character Acacia/Neo to Multi-Galaxy level based on an outlier that contradicts every other established feat from the main cast.

Touhou Project Rules

• Do not try to downgrade the characters' speed ratings from FTL based on Marisa Kirisame's claim that nothing can move faster than light, as this statement is unreliable due to contradicting explicit evidence shown in the series. Not only does Marisa outrun her lightspeed Master Spark shortly afterward, but characters like Sakuya Izayoi have direct FTL statements, and numerous other characters have consistent FTL and higher feats.

Undertale Rules

• Do not attempt to downgrade the characters' speeds from their Massively Hypersonic+ ratings, based on the argument that Vulkin's lightning attacks aren't as fast as natural lightning due to them seemingly not behaving as such in movement and shape, and/or monsters' attacks being magic. Monsters in Undertale have showcased to control their magic in order to generate bullet patterns, other than magical attacks having showcased to be comparable to their real-life counterparts, examples being Toriel's fire behaving as such, Papyrus' bones being actual ones, or also Mettaton being able to use the electricity from his core thanks to him being a robot, with said electricity also behaving as the real one. Debates regarding the topic have grown repetitive and tiresome.

Cool Cat Rules

• Please do not try to add any characters from the Cool Cat series. They lack any legitimate or notable feats to index, and the author has been notoriously touchy regarding their copyright. Our staff has grown tired of the repeated requests to allow this.

Suggsverse Rules

• We have repeatedly discussed this issue and have concluded that the verse in question will never be allowed to have profiles in this wiki. There are several reasons for this decision, including its severe lack of notability and writing quality, making it too inconsistent and incoherent for our members to analyze, and it's obscure to the point that most of them cannot even get a hold of all of the source texts for reference. It is also completely incompatible with our tiering system, given that it mainly came about as a way to flood wikis such as our own with hundreds of high-tier pages. As such, please follow suit and do not try to argue for allowing it again, as doing so only wastes the time of other members.

Discussions

Discussion threads involving Discussion Rules