Agreed: Jackythejack, Junkoposter, Paul Frank, Monarch Laciel, CinnabarManx421, Buttersamuri, Hellbeast, The Pen and the Sword, Andytrenom, HeadlessKramerGeoff, Saikou the Lewd King, Antvasima, Apex PredatorX, Nemo212, Paulo.junior.969, Elizhaa, Dragonmasterxyz, DarkDragonMedeus, GoCommitDi, KLOL506
Disagreed: Wokistan, The Wright Way(?), Iamunanimousinthat(?), Lsirlancelotdulaci, Uninown, Moritzva, Redacted Flinn, DMB 1, I'm Blue daba dee daba die, TriforcePower1, N Kardashev, GojiBoyForever, Yellowpig10, MrDrProfessorPatricio
Neutral: I’m blue daba dee daba die, ThePerpetual, Sir Ovens, Colonel Krukov, Stalker Maggot
I disagree with CH being removed as well. The CH, for one, can still fight, especially if his/her personality has been merged with serial killers and terrorists, so that means he/she would have natural bloodlust. He/she would also have the experience of many military people who were in wars.
I disagree with CH being removed as well. The CH, for one, can still fight, especially if his/her personality has been merged with serial killers and terrorists, so that means he/she would have natural bloodlust. He/she would also have the experience of many military people who were in wars.
CH being able to fight actually doesn't have that much to do with the reasons for deletion; the deletion is because Real Life Composites aren't allowed, whether they're functional or not, with most o the reasons for their deletion also applying to CH. And even if it did have to do with how useful he is in a fight, there's still the points brought up in the last thread about many of his characteristics contradicting each other.
about me forcing the thread to wait: I have the SAT to retake on Saturday, and several tests for tomorrow. Due to that I'm not doing anything that takes me more than like a few minutes to do at a time here until that stuff is done. Might be able to comment by Saturday, if I'm still out by Monday you can prob just stop waiting for me
Yeah, that is true. For example, Psychomaster35 voted for CH to stay, but the reasoning he gave was "CH can still fight", which really doesn't have that much to do with most of the reasonings for deletion.
That doesn't really matter. If someone said "I think CH should stay because potato", we wouldn't count that just because "it's still a vote". The reasoning behind the vote has to make sense. Heck, there are even people saying "for reasons above" when there are no reasons above.
Paulo.junior.969 wrote: That doesn't really matter. If someone said "I think CH should stay because potato", we wouldn't count that just because "it's still a vote". The reasoning behind the vote has to make sense. Heck, there are even people saying "for reasons above" when there are no reasons above.
Using gibberish as a reasoning isn't the same as a faulty argument.
Um, people on the last thread voted FRA due to mine,Gojobois, Yellow Pigs, Moritvasz, arguments. If we count it based off votes with proper reasoning, then many of the votes for axing him would have to be cut
Gibberish and faulty argument are both worthless. You need a good argument for the vote to count.
I'm not talking about the last thread, I'm talking about this one. Go ahead and cut the votes for axing him that do not have proper reasoning, if the reasoning is faulty, they shouldn't be there either. The only votes that count are the ones with actually good reasoning, regardless of what side they're voting for.
Either way, the main reasoning for deletion is that CH breaks the rules in the same way the other Real Life Composites did, and that many of the reasons for their deletion also apply to CH, with the only thing that prevented him from being deleted along with them being his popularity, with popularity being agreed by most to not be a valid reason.
Ok. I don’t know why the first thought is to move them to a place even less appropriate where they’re not wanted, instead of putting it as a blog that’s linked on the real life verse page as a reference in case someone wants to use its feats.
Hence why I’m low key upset that everyone resorted to moving it in places it doesn’t belong and making Prom and whoever else have to deal with shit we made. Please do consider blogs as options, everyone.
It is. Otherwise, we can just nuke the wiki. People seem to not understand that making exceptions to rules doesn’t mean there are no rules. It’s like being a pacifist except when someone is trying to kill you is breaking your pacifism to some of these guys.
But whatever. Just put it on a blog and keep it moving.
And where would the feats of the strongest humans go? What’s more, saying that we can’t break the rules because “it’s fun” is just as subjective as what is or isn’t fun. You’re basically appealing to the rules because they’re the rules and nothing more, knowing damn well that the reason they exist is to prevent problems from arousing. If there are no problems, we don’t have any reason to be against breaking a rule. It’s arbitrary as hell, because at best, you presupppose every rule should be followed without contradiction whilst the other end of the spectrum means any time a rule can be broken with no consequences, the disregard of that rule is by definition inconsequential.
But who cares. We shouldn’t wait around for people to come in and debate this shit when we can just make a blog and move on.
The feats for the strongest humans could very well just go to a blog or be moved somewhere else, there's really no reason to keep a page that isn't allowed just because of them.
Yeah, pretty much, rules are rules. Exceptions can be made sometimes, but CH isn't one of those cases, since a bunch of other pages exactly like him were deleted because of these same rules, and the only reason he was kept was due to popularity, which was agreed not to be a valid reason (meaning that, yes, there is a problem with the page, since the only reason it was kept around is invalid); no other reason to make an exception has been given, except for the fact that some people just don't want the page deleted, so keeping CH around would just be going "fuck the rules because we say so".
Slippery slope is a logical fallacy in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect.
That really doesn't have anything to do with what I'm saying, slippery slope would be if I said "doing this exception once would result in it being done all the time", something I never said. I don't think making an exception for CH would start a slippery slope, and if there was a good reason to make an exception for him, then it could be made just fine, but the thing is: there isn't one. There's no reason to make an exception for CH, people just don't want the page to be deleted even when they know it breaks the rules.
I want Composite Human to stay, but I feel like there's a stronger argument to remove him than to keep him as a profile. Haven't read through the whole of the first thread yet, but I'm siding towards agree.
Even it up with a disagreement from me then. It’s literally exactly a slippery slope fallacy to imply that breaking the rules for this will set a problematic precedent, when there’s no reason it should. Exactly as Paulo explained, and yet he’s supporting the removal based on the rules all the same, along with appealing to “rules are rules” instead of explaining WHY we should follow this rule at this time. He just keeps on replying to the question “What’s the harm in not following this rule ONCE?” with “Breaking the rules is bad because it’s bad.” No affects. No real consequences.
And I don’t care if this sounds like an appeal to motive, the fact that their first reaction to this is to delete the page and force it into obscurity instead of putting it on a blog to keep it on this site somehow demonstrates that he’s at least somewhat biased against the profile. He said so himself.
Answer this. And not with “Rules are rules” bs plz.
Why should we follow a rule that will cause no lasting negative effects and changes to our system if it is broken once and never again? Saying that it wasn’t deleted before like all the others and it should have been is false, because the very fact of its existence here demonstrates there was something— it’s popularity— that made it an exception. To argue that fun is enough is just as reasonable as saying that following the rules for the sake of rules is a good thing. You didn’t even bother providing people with the simplistic solution of blogs, but instead allowed chaos surrounding its erradication and otherwise fall into obscurity to take hold, making people put it or delete it off of wikis it doesn’t belong. All because it’s probably true that you’d Like it to not exist at all, and disagree with its value, so what happens to it doesn’t matter. It caused needless argument and worrying, just refusing to figure out how it can be preserved in value.
"It’s literally exactly a slippery slope fallacy to imply that breaking the rules for this will set a problematic precedent"
Something I never did. Again, I don't think making an exception for CH would start a slippery slope, it's just that exceptions need a good reson to happen, and CH has none.
“What’s the harm in not following this rule ONCE?”
None, if there's a good reason to do so, there is. CH has no reason.
"The fact that their first reaction to this is to delete the page and force it into obscurity instead of putting it on a blog to keep it on this site somehow demonstrates that he’s at least somewhat biased against the profile."
That was so the people who like CH would still have the chance to use him in vs threads on another wiki, since blogs can't be used serious in threads. And again, a blog is fine as well; I don't care where CH goes as long as he doesn't stay as a page.
"He said so himself."
Appeal to motive.
"Why should we follow a rule that will cause no lasting negative effects and changes to our system if it is broken once and never again?"
Because there's no good reason to. You're pretty much asking me to "give a reason not to make an exception", when it is up to you to give a reason why the exception should be made. The burden of proof is always on the positive claim, and the person who makes the claim. Again, if you can give me a good reason as to why an exception should be made, then I would be fine with making it, but nobody has given any good reason.
"The very fact of its existence here demonstrates there was something— it’s popularity— that made it an exception."
It was agreed by most in the last thread that popularity is not a valid reason.
"To argue that fun is enough is just as reasonable as saying that following the rules for the sake of rules is a good thing."
Yeah, because rules should be followed, unless there's a reason to make an exception. CH has no good reason, people just want an exception because they don't want him gone.
"You didn’t even bother providing people with the simplistic solution of blogs, but instead allowed chaos surrounding its erradication and otherwise fall into obscurity to take hold, making people put it or delete it off of wikis it doesn’t belong."
Already responded to this previously, and again, a blog is fine as well.
"All because it’s probably true that you’d Like it to not exist at all, and disagree with its value, so what happens to it doesn’t matter. It caused needless argument and worrying, just refusing to figure out how it can be preserved in value."
I'm Blue daba dee daba die wrote: it's their choice for why they vote disagree.
Which is exactly why content revisions shouldn't be based off of a voting system. One solid argument trumps numerous arguments that miss the point, especially when some of those voters have likely been countered by this point, from either side. Liking Composite Human alone doesn't excuse it from going against our policies.
1. The idea that fun isn’t an exception that is acceptable in your opinion is just as arbitrary as your desire to follow the rules. You start from the premise that the rules should be followed to a T irrelevant to the consequences, just as you start with “fun” not being good enough. Despite the fact tha we’re doing this whole thing for fun. It screams out that you see this as a business. Lighten up. Jesus.
2. If you concede there’s no harm to it’s presence, then there’s no reason to delete the page beyond your desires to. It just sitting where it is did no tangible harm to the system, and the only flaw you cite is a simple disagreement with the premise of it being allowed here for fun. You want it gone arbitrarily. That’s not anything anyone can debate with, making all of these threads pointless. How are we supposed to debate you out of your feelings?
3. Your first solution should have been blogs, as the insistence that it be deleted or moved created unnecessarily chaos and drawn out this issue for far longer than necessary.
4. I don’t care if it’s an appeal to motive. It’s blatantly true. Your lack of desire to preserve the information on the page, no, your desire to eradicate the page made this even harder than it needed to be. Had you just thought conservatively for a moment instead of fighting against it, we wouldn’t be having to go through all of this, and there wouldn’t be blogs of it on Prom’s wiki. This caused needless expenditure of energy.
5. The exception has already been made. You misunderstand your position here. You’re arguing for something that already exists to become different. You need to support an argument where it needs to become different. Currently, that page is harming nothing. To ask for it’s removal is arbitrary and, again, requires a needless expenditure of effort. You’re begging the question and working backwards from your conclusion trying to get your oh so hated page deleted. And that’s relevant, whether your bias is conscious or not or your actions drenched in malicious or benign intent. It shapes your argument into an anti CH profile narrative with no reasoning to support it besides it braking rules that were already established to not apply to it, ruining many other people’s fun just because you don’t enjoy the same thing.
6. People agreed because they’re trained by society (and this wiki especially) to follow the rules just because they’re rules. Many of them make the same or similar mistake to you, starting from the premise that rules should be followed unless given reason otherwise, instead of recognizing that we are now applying rules for no other reason to something that doesn’t need to be regulated. It’s an arbitrary application of a regulation. And I don’t know if you noticed, but you’re now outnumbered and there were almost just as many people who disagreed with this as there were those who agreed.
7. And that’s an arbitrary conclusion you’ve come to that’s just as subjective and meaningless as what can be considered fun. You’re doing the EXACT same thing I knew you would, saying “Follow Rules because they’re rules.” Not an argument. Many people believe that rules should only exist and be followed due to necessity. In California, there’s a law that you can’t wear high heels without a permit. In some states in America, like Maryland, oral sex is illegal. No on follows those rules. No one applies those rules. It’s not inherently logical to follow rules just because they’re rules. That’s just your own arbitrary personal axiom that you take as a given, that has equal, if not greater reasoning to be disagreed with on an equally arbitrary level. I asked you to argue why we should follow the rules outside of this assumption, and you’ve failed to do so. I asked you to state a harm in not following the rule, which there is none even by your own admition and according to all the non-existent evidence of it being a bad precedent, along with how implying such is a slippery slope fallacy that you deny you’re making. You failed. Your only argument is that we should delete CH because it’s the rules and we should retroactively apply the rule to it (that we deliberately decided not to before) because we should follow the rules.
8. I don’t care. It is painfully obvious to me that your adamant desire to remove this page whilst not seeking the most sensible compromise FIRST has influenced your judgement. Especially given how you’re arbitrarily deciding it’s important to “follow the rules just cuz they rules” as what you see as a convenient counter to anything you see in opposition to you. It’s very easy to argue that your judgement has been influenced by your opinions, both on this and on how rules should be interacted with in general. Again, the proper response to my question would have been to state the harm of CH’s continued existence to support the idea that we should change our ruling on him, as following rules just because they’re rules is a bad argument. You should have provided reasons for it, provided harms. This way, we’re following the rules in this case for a reason— the same reason many rules are created and followed— to regulate harmful or otherwise interfering factors out of a system that would be preferred to work seemlessly. But no. It’s cause rules are supposed to be followed, yeah? Rulee’s Aren’t followed because they prevent issues, they’re followed because they’re rules. And arguing that it’s important to think about what issues are being propagated by taking exception or breaking them before blindly following them is heresy. Lmao.
Of course, I don’t mean any harm Paulo, i’m just stating my case.
1 - It being an entertainment website does not mean you can simply ignore the regulations because "it's fun", you need an actually good reason. And before you respond, please keep in mind at no point in this comment I ever mention CH starting a slippery slope, since I never said this one exception would result in others.
2 - There is harm to his presence, the fact that he breaks the rules; the only case in which there would be no harm would be if an exception was made, which is why I am asking you to provide a good reason for it to be made. If you want reason for it to be deleted, there's an entire previous thread with nearly 500 replies explaining why. What I'm still waiting or is a good reason for an exception to be made.
3 - Again, blogs are fine. It doesn't matter where he ends up, all that matters is that he shouldn't be a page.
4 - "I don’t care if it’s an appeal to motive" doesn't change the fact that it is appeal to motive. If your argument revolves around a logical fallacy, you can't fix it by just saying "I don't care".
5 - The exception was made because of popularity, which was agreed by most to not be a valid reason. If the reason isn't valid, you an't use it as an argument; please give me an actual valid reason for an exception to be made.
6 - No argument here, just saying you don't like that rules have to be followed. What was the point of this paragraph?
7 - "Follow the rules because they're rules" is how the rules work; if you want the rules to be changed, feel free to make your own CRT. Again, at no point I ever said that making an exception for CH would result in other exceptions, all I asked was for you to provide a valid reason for the page to be kept around (which you still haven't done), I did not make a slippery slope fallacy at any point, you just assumed that this is what I mean by your own accord and is now acusing me of making an argument I've never made.
8 - "I don’t care if it’s an appeal to motive" doesn't change the fact that it is appeal to motive. If your argument revolves around a logical fallacy, you can't fix it by just saying "I don't care".
"Arguing that it’s important to think about what issues are being propagated by taking exception"
Again, I never made this argumen, quite the opposite in fact, I've said many times that an exception could be made if a valid reason was presented. You just misunderstood what I meant, and is now accusing me of a allacy because of your own misuderstanding.
"Arguing that taking exception or breaking them before blindly following them is heresy"
I've been saying for hours that an exception could be made if a good reason was given, and asking you to give a good reason; how the hell did you get "not following the rules blindly is heresy" from that? You just have to present a valid reason for an exception to be made like I've been asking.
1. Then why argue against it being an exception? It doesn’t necessarily need a “good reason”, which is clearly arbitrary to you, especially since you don’t need a good reason to follow the rules. A meaningless, if not unattainable standard based on personal opinion, nothing to argue with. Can I pull a Jojo and say “Next thing you’ll say is, ‘But if we start making an exception for no reason with CH, we can do that with anything!’”
That’s a slippery slope fallacy. By definition. Your requirements heavily imply that you want to avoid this conclusion because of the fear that it will grow into bigger problems. When it HASN’T.
2. Again, you’re simply restating that the rules should be follows because they’re rules. That’s not an argument. Is getting oral sex something to be avoided because it’s against the law to you as well? Do you not recognize that breaking the rules isn’t what is bad, but the consequences of such actions are what is to be avoided? You sound like a tyrant when you argue that rules shouldn’t be broken because they’re rules, and you contradict what we’ve already done for CH before this problem people arbitrarily honed in on does— with little consequences, again. And in that previous thread, which I did read before commenting here, I saw much of the same argument you’re giving currently. Arbitrary notions surrounding it being bad to break the rules because they’re supposed to not be broken, which by itself implies the worse conclusion to that behavior is chaos— a slippery slope argument. You don’t have to say something for it to become clear. That’s what implications are, and what you get when you think about them and the consequences of actions. Your opinion on what is and isn’t a good reason is absolutely worthless, as it seems you agree with my assertions about your dogmatic rules lawyering. You’re not interested in compromise or change because you’re starting from the position that you’re correct, when the burden is on YOU to demonstrate why we should apply rules to CH that we didn’t before. And no, it’s not a good argument “objectively” to appeal to the rules and say “just because rules should be followed”. There needs to be a REASON for the following of those rules and why the damage caused by their disregard is qualified as “damage” in the first place. You continue to fallaciously stand by the idea that they should be followed just because, without providing the important aspect of why we should now all of a sudden apply a rule that we made an exception to. That’s what you’re doing. Applying a rule to something that wasn’t being applied before. You need to argue why,Paulo.
3. You should have used Blogs first instead of being so careless, is my issue. We wouldn’t have wasted half of the first thread hearing people complain about its fall into obscurity and we’d easily have no problems with anything. In fact, I would argue had you and Yobo start with that, no one would fight against you because we’d lose nothing.
4. You don’t care that you’re being fallacious with thinking that “dem’s the rules” is enough to make any decisions on this matter. What’s more, in your mind, that conclusion likely holds? Why should I feel compelled to operate any differently? Tell you what, you give me a real reason to follow this rule that we already decided not to apply as an acception (again, “Dems da rulez” is not an argument) and I won’t “appeal to motive” even if it’s true! :)
5. The jury is still out on that. You count the majority as the people who AGREE with you, but more than half of people voting now disagree. Not just that, but your fallacious appeal to the rules made many people convinced that it’s not enough, so it wouldn’t really be right to count people who were convinced by faulty reasoning as people who agree with you. But even without that, the burden of proof is on you for why it should go. Beyond “because rules”.
6. The point of that paragraph was to explain to you how illogical your “argument” is because it’s based in your opinion and nothing more. You start from the idea that you’re correct in this case, and because not many saw this, no one decided to put you in the place you’re supposed to be and argue why things should change. Instead, because we’re usually good whittle kids, we take your fallacious argument as a given because “rules are rules”. And they should be followed. Accept, that’s just a restatement of your claim, not your reasoning. Your claim is that we should follow the rules, and by consequence, YEET CH. but you believe your evidence is that “We should follow the rules.” Or worse, you’re basically saying “YEET CH because the rules don’t allow him.” As if the latter was enough on its own LOGICALLY. This has objectively nothing with my opinion. My problem, for ANOTHER time, is that you’re using your opinion to justify something. Your opinion is arbitrary. You, who is advocating for a change, need to provide reason for that change beyond “just cause”, not ANYONE here. If the only harm is that they break the rule just this once, and there are no negative consequences to breaking that rule— unless you wanna argue that creates a negative precedent— that’s a Slippery Slope you sliding on my dude, too much lube— then... Your argument is worthless. Because it’s a broken window that no one cares about— it doesn’t matter. It’s a needless restriction that makes things less enjoyable around here, which means we lose more than we gain, which, I will support with evidence if you ask, instead of simply presupposing you agree with the idea that we should midigate losses and maximize benefits, but unlike with following a rule we made up, this perspective is generally held reasonably and has an actual non-fallacious basis. I doubt you want me to send you an essay on why we might want to preserve resources we desire (like “fun”) in this thread, so, just know that you’re actually costing us more than you’re helping, and many would argue that it’s a “bad thing”, you see. It has nothing to do with my disregard of rules, it has everything to do with the disregard of logic in the philosophy of adherence to those rules. If there’s no reason to use them, there’s no reason to follow them.
7. That’s not how rules work, that’s how you personally view them. By that logic, we can’t even change the rules, and what’s worse to me is that not only do you refuse to concede to the idea that it is YOUR responsibility to support your own position, but you also want me to “make a CRT” to change... What? Philosophy on how we view things in a rule based system— there’s no content to revise my dude. This is literally my least favorite deflection tactic, because it’s a cowardly attempt to make me go elsewhere so you can have your fixed conclusion, instead of directly addressing my point as they are relevant to the topic at hand, and here, it doesn’t even make any coherent sense. What am I supposed to CRT? Don’t bother answering, because the whole idea itself was a disingenuous attempt to get me to go somewhere else and it’s best you spend time supporting your argument instead of trying to clarify meaningless drivel.
8. You’re, again, doing the same thing by doubling down on your arbitrary baseless principle that “all rules should be followed because they’re rules”. Why, again, should I argue differently? If you can deny you’re using a logical fallacy and appeal to the system and try the “Make a CRT” disingenuous deflection trick, I can tell you what you’re saying, especially when you don’t understand the greater implications of your words. You say that you want a good reason, but the fact that you plant your argument as if YOUR premise needs to be argued against, despite the fact that the reality is that you need to argue against the premise it should stay (and getting a temperature check on a thread where half of the posters disagreed with you isn’t arguing against the premise), on top of the fact that the reasoning for WHY any reason at all is required is implicitly linked to the prevention of a slippery slope demonstrates my point.
The need for a reason implies that if you don’t have one, that’s bad. It’s bad because you can slippery slope your way into applying whatever things you want. That’s, again, a slippery slope argument. I’ve seen you and others talk about how “it’s fun” is similar to “you just want to keep it”, which is a call out to their arbitrary desire to keep CH. Why call out their arbitrary actions if not to caution against capricious application of judgement, which would lead into bigger impacts across the wiki? You WERE making slippery slopes arguments. People don’t have to be consciously aware of what they are doing to preform actions. They don’t have to intentionally act in that direction to produce that affect. You asking for a good reason directly demonstrates your hand, because you believe rules should be followed unless there’s a good reason, which doesn’t work here, because you’re asking for a change in the current context. You can’t go into an argument where the burden of proof and the purpose is to change your opponents’ opinions and say “Here’s my opinion, change my mind.” When... That’s the... Opposite of the purpose of the discussion. Don’t be Steven Crowder. Lmao. Like him, people can be bigots and deny their bigotry whilst directly demonstrating it. Think of yourself as doing that, but not cancelable.
Toxic? I said one person’s name as a benign reference to the “Change my Mind guy” who most people don’t even really know— especially with how bad he is as a person. I didn’t say anything about BLM or Neonazis. But if you understand the implications of simply knowing that guy, then... Hm. Maybe that’s a problem. I dunno. Depends. Either way, no one knows who he is outside of people into politics, so, I didn’t MAKE anything political.
1 - Yes, you need a good reason to make exceptions to the rules, because that's the point of having rules, they have to be followed. Again, I never said it would start a slippery slope, you simply assumed that yourself.
2 - Yes, the rules should be follows because they’re rules. There can be exceptions, obviously, which is why I'm giving you the change to give a good reason or an exception to be made for CH, yet you reuse to give any. Again, I never said it would start a slippery slope, you simply assumed that yourself. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why we should make an exception for CH when it was decided that "it's popular" is not a valid reason.
3 - It doesn't matter where he ends up, all that matters is that he shouldn't be a page.
4 - Following the rules is not a fallacy. Burden of proof, however, is a fallacy, such as "give me a reason to not make an exception for CH", when the question should actually be "give me a reasonto make an exception for CH". Also, "we already decided not to apply as an acception" isn't really valid, since it was agreed that "it's popular" is not a valid reason to make an exception.
5 - Yeah, most people agree that "its popular" isn't a valid reason, that was the conclusion we got in the last thread; the people voting for CH are only really asking for an exception to be made without really giving any real reason behind it. And even then, the burden of proof is on you as to why CH should be made an exception.
6 - It's not based on oppinion, it's based on the rules; CH fits almost every category that was used as a justification to delete te other Composites, and the only reason CH wasn't deleted was due to popularity; popularity was decided to not be a valid reason, so until a better reason is given (which I've been asking people to give for hours), CH has no reason to be kept around. Again, i never said it creates negative precedent, you made up that yourself (honestly, at this point I would really like if you stopped talking about this slippery slope argument I never made. You made that argument up). If you think rules are a needless restriction, go make a CRT to change the rules, but that has really nothing to do with what this CRT s about; this thread is about whether or not CH follows the rules, and it doesn't. If there's no reason to break the rules, there's no logic in doing so.
7 - No, that's not how my logic is, you're once again misunderstanding my argument and using your misunderstanding as an argument against me. The rules can be changed, as long as it is done in a thread that is about changing the rules, but this isn't what this thread is about, this thread is about whether or not CH follows the rules, and it doesn't; if you want the rules changed (which is kind of what you just said, that you want to change the rules), go make your own CRT instead of deraying this one. If you want to say I'm using a "cowardly attempt to make you go elsewhere", go ahead (specially since that's an ad hominem attack, calling me a coward), but it is simply not my problem whether you agree with the rules or not, and that's really not what the thread you're responding to is about, so you really shouldn't be trying to debate this with me, or trying to debate this here. Basically, what you're saying is that you don't want to follow the rules, and this thread isn't about whether you should follow the rules or not, so if you want to talk about not having to follow the rules, go make another thread instead of deraying this one.
8 - Yeah, my premisse is the one who needs to be argued against, because the burden of proof is always on the positive claim. Your claim is that "an exception should be made for CH", so you are the one who must provide a reason as to why this exception should be made. Also, this has nothing to do with slippery slope; you were the one who assumed my argument was a slippery slope, but I never made the argument you're talking about, you just assumed I did by your own accord. The burden of proof would be on me if I said "the rules should be followed no matter what, peripd", but that's not the argument I'm making; I've said multiple times that exceptions can be made, but you still haven't given a reason as to why this case should be one of them. Following the rules is the standard, eceptions are, like the name says, exceptions, so please provide a valid reason as to why CH is an exception.
Now you're once again making baseless assumptions just so you could accuse me of a slippery slope fallacy I've never made. You assumed that "would lead into bigger impacts across the wiki" was part of my argument, but I never said that at any point, you made that up. My argument doesn't have anything to do with it impacting future instances, it's just that you haven't given any reason to make an exception for CH; how this would impact the wiki is irrelevant, since I'm talking about this case and this case only, not any future cases of similar things happening.
Yes, the rules should be followed unless there’s a good reason. The burden of proof is on you, just give a good reason as to why an exception should be made for CH. This has nothing to do with changing my mind, it's just that you've so far failed to provide any good reason to make an exception, so there's really no reason to do so.
Also, I don't know who Steven Crowder is, so I'm not sure if saying that I'm just like him is an ad hominem attack or not, but either way, this really doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about, so I'm not sure why you brought this guy up.
So, you’re just gonna repeat the same thing over and over again, not realizing that you need to support your position rather than just stating your position is supposed to be self evident? Ok.
And no. it wasn’t an Adhom. I was saying that you can make an argument without realizing that’s what you’re doing. And me pointing that out to you and you denying it doesn’t change that you are, evidently, making that claim. If I said that I think I should be allowed to kill whoever I want, I am also saying it’s ok for me to kill people. But if I deny the latter based on the fact that I didn’t explicitly state the latter, when they’re implicitly (or explicitly) the same due to being synonymous, then it doesn’t matter as a response.
Why should the rules be followed? What happens if we don’t follow rules? See, your answer would be that we’d do more bad things. That’s not necessarily true. That’s a slippery slope. But you’re clearly not arguing that! :)
Ok. So, why should we follow the rules then, if there’s no consequences? Saying we just should because we should is not an argument. At all. I literally went over how your side is the one attempting to propose a change, so it’s you that should necessarily prove that the change needs to happen, not us who should prove that your claim isn’t inherently true. It’s like walking into a debate and making a claim and asking others to destroy it when you were summoned to argue your point and change everyone else’s opinion. Now, we have to change yours? Why? Especially when everything was just fine before you asked.
At this point, you’re not arguing with me. Not only are you arguing with a straw man of me, you’re arguing with a straw man that isn’t even accurate to a shadow of my points. You fundamentally don’t understand what’s wrong with your arguments, and there’s nothing I can do to fix that.
I am supporting the position. Again, following the rules is the standard, and I am willing to agree that CH could be an exception if a good reason to do do is given, but you simply refuse to support your position by providing any reason as to why an exception should be made.
So calling me "cowardly" isn't an ad hominem now? But regardless, as I've said multiple times, "would lead into bigger impacts across the wiki" was never part of my argument in the first place, you just assumed it was, and is now using your own assumption to accuse me of a slippery slope fallacy I never made. If you think I made an argument that I didn't actually made, that's not my fault for "making an argument without realizing" that's your fault for wrongfully assuming what my argument was.
The rules should be followed because that's the standard, and that's what rules were made for. Once again, I do agree that exceptions can happen, and I never said it would cause a slippery slope, but you simply refuse to give any reason as to why CH should be an exception.
I've already provided proof as to why the change needs to happen: CH is just like all the other dleted Composites, and the only reason he wasn't deleted along with them (popularity) was agreed by most in the last thread to not be a valid reason. Right now I'm waiting for another reason to be given for an exception to be made (since "popularity" isn't considered valid, he needs a valid reason to replace it), but none has been given so far. You're acting as if no evidence as to why CH should be deleted was given, when there is a thread with nearly 500 replies where all the reasons where explained in detail, and now I'm waiting for the reasons as to why an exception should be made.
If I have misunderstood any of your arguments, I am sorry for doing so, and please know that wasn't my intention. However, meanwhile, you have been straw maning me for hours, accusing me of using a slippery slope argument that I have never made.
You said the same shit 3 times in the exact same way that I knew you would, and I made clear what my perception of your argument is. I didn’t strawman anything. You just don’t understand and that’s your business.
Actually, before we start to remove votes, we'll have to decide what kind of votes are and are not valid to begin with. So let's try to get to an agreement:
Anyone asking for an exception to be made for CH without giving an actual reason (like saying "it's popular", or "it's fun") is out of the vote count. Anyone who says "FRA" but doesn't explain why is also out (for both sides).
Paulo.junior.969 wrote: Actually, before we start to remove votes, we'll have to decide what kind of votes are and are not valid to begin with. So let's try to get to an agreement:
Anyone asking for an exception to be made for CH without giving an actual reason (like saying "it's popular", or "it's fun") is out of the vote count. Anyone who says "FRA" but doesn't explain why is also out (for both sides).
It is fine when the thread has one main argument being used, but this thread is gigantic, and mas dozens of different rguments being thrown around, so using FRA without actuall saying what you're FRAing makes it impossible to know whether you're agreeing with an argument that was decided to be valid, or with an agument that ended up being invalid, which is very important to know in threads like this.
What side has the better argument is the most important thing. Vote only matter if both sides have equallly valid arguments, which is why invalid arguments do not count.
It was agreed by most that "it's fun" or "it's popular" are not valid reasons, so they get out. Asking the rule breaking to just be handwaved away is not even an argument, it's just asking for it to be ignored for no reason.
If you do think these arguments are valid, feel free to explain why you think so.
The vote tally is only there in case the arguments end up in a stalemate with both sides being valid, but the vote count isn't even nearly as important as how valid the actual arguments behind it are. An invlid argument could have over a thousand votes, and it would still be invalid.
You wanting it completely is irrelevant unless you have a valid argument to back it up. You don't see people going on threads and voting based on "I want it to be like that", do you?
It is a good way to indicte feats for humanity, however, this can very easily be done by turning the page into a blog. There's no reason to keep a page that break the rules just because of that.
I defended keeping CH as a page. But, the only reason I wanted him to stay because I wanted him to stay as a representation of humanity and its best feats. I didn't want this serious scaling of something as important to, scaling, to be on either on a meme or fanfiction site.
However, I am relatively OK with a blog post detailing the feats of humanity instead of a composite page. May not be as fun without his insane win to loss ratio. But I feel like its true value of a proper scaling site for humanity can be relatively fufilled in a blog post detailing what good feats humanity has done.
I think a good reason to maintain CH's profile is the enormous amount of information about the human species that it possesses, information that will not be found together anywhere else. Deleting/moving one of the best and well-documented profiles from this site will just be a waste.
CH's profile could be perfectly used as a good example of how to create and arrange a page, and we could use some of its information to support many other profiles, such as how we use real-life animals and weapons to scale fictional characters.
And let's be honest, putting this profile on a blog will only make it tremendously difficult, if not almost impossible, for new users to find it, let alone put it on another site. If Vsbattles is trully a place to collect information no matter if it is real or fictional, this page should stay here, not as an exception, but as a profile full of valuable information available to us and any other person who enters this site.
We can put it on one of the information blogs (we can replace one of the anime cosmology explanations because proper scaling for humanity is more useful for a scaling site), and we can also put it in a blog reference on the real world page
"A good example of how to create and arrange a page" is something that could still be done in a blog, and so is using it to scale to fictional characters. There are ways to make it easier to find, like linking it on The Real World page like I'm Blue suggested.
Yes, it is a place to collect information no matter if it is real or fictional, but CH is technically neither, he is a hypothetical idea. His feats are real, but the "character" itself isn't, which is why he fits most of the reason why the other Real Life Composites were deleted.
I'm Blue daba dee daba die wrote:
We can put it on one of the information blogs (we can replace one of the anime cosmology explanations because proper scaling for humanity is more useful for a scaling site), and we can also put it in a blog reference on the real world page
That is a very good idea, that way it will not lose so much visibility for those who are newcomers and have no idea of the existence of this page.
So, wait, am I the only one who noticed how you claimed the majority of the thread agreed that fun wasn’t an argument, whilst you simultaneously listed and discarded people who disagree with you? Just before, you claimed that most people agreed with the idea that it wasn’t good enough to be “fun”, and now not only are you disregarding reasons you subjectively view as worthless, one of them being “its harmless, we enjoy it, why not keep it?” In so many words, but you’re also recognizing that the idea your claim that was so widely accepted was discarded by the opposition, which was winning before you decided to pull this trick of eliminating votes that “don’t make sense”, which isn’t really as common practice as you think and is often a point of conflict, as deleting votes is not based on who makes an actual argument but whether you agree with them, as demonstrated here. Those comments are proof that it’s in contention, and most of them are about it being fun. What the fuck...
Like... Not only do you not understand that making an argument for a change is presenting an argument, which requires you to give a reason for it instead of simply arguing that it’s the standard, you also seemed to lie and say no one cares about it being “fun”. When most of the people who agree with the profile staying seem to agree that it is fun and that is a good enough reason to them. Ugh. You’re bullshitting. There’s no “good reason” to keep it in your mind because several of the reasons listed were as good if not better than the original one, even if they were also the exact same reasoning. Why pretend that you actually believe in allowing it to exist when your whole argument is based on your own subjective position, which is soured whether you like it or admit to it or not by the fact that you hate the page. It’s absolutely ridiculous how people are letting you call the shots as if your position is the one that needs to be defeated when you’re the one asking for change. No offense, obviously
And yet the numbers of people who disagreed with its deletion who said FRA or didn’t state why are still not on your side, and provide no other argument besides “it’s fun”. What are you to conclude besides the fact that they think it’s fun and feel like that’s a good enough reason but can’t think of one otherwise based on logic you would accept? Which goes against the idea that it’s even the majority that agreed by definition. Because the belief is still held.
Critical thinking would help you deduce that still agreeing with the page staying FRA when most of the arguments were based on Fun or something related means that you agree with those arguments. This is dishonest, man.
"FRA" makes it impossible to tell what they're voting for, so we can't tell if its a valid reason or not. You say "most of the arguments" as if "it's fun" was the driving force, but there were dozens of arguments being thrown around for both sides, and "it's fun" only really started being used after the other arguments were debunked, and at that point most of the people had already voted, meaning that assuming their reasons to be "it's fun" would be mostly baseless, so the FRA votes really can't be counted. That's not only for the disagreeing side, both sides had its FRA removed, as it is impossible to check their justifications.
Also, calling me dishonest for removing the "FRA" when this did more damage to my side than to my opposition (since it took out 8 votes for my side, and only 6 for the other) really doesn't make that much sense, and even if it did make sense, it's an ad hominem nonetheless.
Amexim wrote: Also, everyone else? Including all of the people who voted in favor? EVERYONE? Or even a majority? I’m sure many people popped in to vote and then left. You can’t even verify your position...
... you do realize the "FRA" of those who agreed got removed as well, right? That's how it went down to only 15. It was in the 20s, and 8 got removed because of that. Not everyone is being included, those who just appeared and then left are not being taken into consideration.
Lol if one side is deciding what is valid or invalid, then it should not be trusted. Shouldn't we let neutral and no bias or motivation to manage this?
Anyway I believe there was an argument on the differences between fictional composite and real life composite. And it was also pointed out that there are similarities between them as well. Let's just go from there.
I went through the thread again. Most people who agreed it wasn’t a valid argument were people who wanted it deleted. That’s not “everyone”. That’s not even most people. Some of them, like Triforce, even said this; “. CH is fun is a terrible argument, but there’s a reason people said it. At the end of the day, we’re here to have fun, to entertain ourselves, each in his own way. CH is interesting, popular, is used even in other VS debating websites, and, most importantly, it doesn’t bring any harm to the wiki.
If the only reason for why CH cannot be allowed is because “it breaks the rules”, then the rules can go to hell. They’re needed to create order in the wiki, but now they’re only causing problems. Especially for such a small rule, which is an exception of an another small rule. Come on guys...“
Exactly what I said, plus “It’s fun.” Even acknowledging its not a strong argument but doing what many of us are feeling and asserting it should be kept for that reason anyway. I’m not the only one who recognizes that you’re starting from the point of “rules are rules” rather than approaching this as you should, from the perspective of a person trying to convince us to apply the rule to someone it clearly doesn’t apply to. There’s no point in having an argument or even counting votes if the guy who conveniently position himself as final boss of the thread that the neutral party just conforms to is on the opposing side. With him in power, he can veto arguments instead of actually engaging with them. I literally did my best to explain why “Dems da rules” isn’t enough and he just said “but they are tho”. There’s no debate.
Yeah, most of the people who agreed wanted it deleted. Are you just gonna appeal to motive?
Also, as I've said many times, following the rules is the standard. If there is a good reason to make an exception for CH, I would be fine with that, but there isn't. The only reasons given so far are things that could easily be solved by just making it a blog. I'm not the "final boss" of anything, I'm just asking for a good reason to keep the page, and you for some reason refuse to give me any (while also calling me stuff like "dishonest" or "cowardly", and not taking it back even after I point out to you that I'm none of those things, but whatever).
They’re not being taken into consideration by you and the neutral party that cucked to you because you said so and nothing more, just like how “it’s fun” isn’t a reason because you said so. You managed to snatch yourself a position on the board where you’re the person who needs to be defeated when that’s not the proper order of the debate. You and Yobo are presenting a change. It’s your job to give a reason BESIDES “Rules say so.” It’s, to quote Goji, an unnecessary change. And the only logical reason for that change that was stated in the thread that you implicitly state and agree with is a slippery slope. It doesn’t matter if you didn’t say it, just like “fun” doesn’t matter to you. Both are factually true, people do like it because it’s fun and you trying to remove it can only be logically explained by a slippery slope reasoning. Otherwise there is no reason to get rid of it, because just like “fun” isn’t an argument, “Rules” isn’t an argument either.
By "not being taken into consideration" you mean the FRA votes? Because those are kind of the ones that prove I'm in no way as dishonest as you're saying I am, since, once again, removing them did more damage to the agree side than to the disagree one.
I didn't "snatch" myself into anything, I'm just responding to a thread I'm part of. Just because I'm more active does not mean I'm more important than anyone (it only really meas I have more free time).
You are correct that is is our job to give the reason, something that has already been done: the reason for CH being removed was already given, that being that he is just like all of the other Real Life Composites (I went into more detail on the last thread, multiple times), and that the only reason he was kept around (popularity), was agreed by most in the last thread to not be valid. It was only when people started throwing "the rules can go to hell" around that the burden of proof was moved to your side; if you want an exception to the rules, just provide a good reason to do so.
Yes, it does matter if I didn't say it. If you're arguing against something I never said, you're arguing against a straw man.
No. I’m saying that most of the people who you claim don’t think it’s a good argument are the same people against the whole thing in the first place. You frame the idea that everyone agreed with fun not being a good reason as if both sides agreed with that, but they didn’t. The only sides that agreed with it being insufficient are the sides that disagreed with CH’s continued existence. That’s relevant because that basically reduces any logic you used to discard “Fun” as a reason to a difference of opinion between two groups, not a universally recognized or accepted belief. And are you gonna actually interact with the argument, or use a phrase you learned from someone else again and again when it’s convenient. A fallacy is only applicable when it genuinely is a fallacy, you know. If there’s a reason to point out a conflict of interest, and that reason holds up to some viable scrutiny logically, it’s not a fallacy. It’s a claim. And sure, just pointin that motive out might be irrelevant to the conversation, but when that motive impacts your ability be reasoned with and logically recognize things, it becomes a part of the problem.
You keep saying following the rules is the standard, when the very fact that we’re here and that there’s anyone who disagrees with you is proof that it is neither the 100% standard procedure nor the 100% common value held by this community. Nevermind the fact that rules are often bent and changed, you appealing to the rules ignores the reason the rules exist in the first place. They don’t exist just to exist, they exist and are followed and applied for a purpose. If there is no reason to use or apply or follow them, the harm done by rectifying an exception is greater than the benefit done by it. You accomplish nothing but make shit harder and put more work on others just to get what you want.
But, you’re not listening. You think that you saying something is the only way information can be gleaned. You think that you have to actively state a fallacious reason for you to engage and utilize fallacious reasoning and that you can only be called out for it if you are doing the former— as if saying that you didn’t, unintentionally or otherwise, find a way to make it so that way everything has to go by you before it’s ok. Why do we have to care about you being convinced? You’re just one person with an opinion that subjectively, arbitrarily judges with no logic what is a good reason to keep around something you would rather not keep around at all as it is. Which, in fact, influences that bar you set, making your motive RELEVANT whether you like it or intend it to or not. Saying you’re not any of these things doesn’t make you not any of those things. It’s just you denying what I am stating. A criminal isn’t not guilty because he denies his crime. I break down how you don’t make any sense and you ignore it or restate exactly what doesn’t make sense as if it does, and it does because you say so and no one holds you to that. You don’t have to be intentionally aware of yourself to be something, especially not dishonest or to engage in disingenuous activity. You can do these things without realizing it, just as I can be an asshole without knowing. But just because I deny that doesn’t make it true.
The people who agreed the reason to be not valid are the people who were on your side. That’s not a universal disagreement. Stating that means absolutely nothing, because that point is literally still in contention. You haven’t proven anything, just stated that others agree with your arbitrary assessment, and only those on your side who do. It isn’t a consensus or a conclusion that holds and validity, so restating it as if it was a commonly accepted position is dishonest, intentionally or not, because it’s observably not true and hard to misunderstand. It can only be that the words use are misleading because they are phrased exactly in a way and with a purpose that implies a consensus was formed, when the only consensus was amongst the opposition that was already in agreement.
Both currently, and before, the idea that fun wasn’t good enough is in contention. To state that your rejection of both the previous and current reasoning for people’s desire to preserve the page is somehow proof or evidence or an argument at all is literally the same as saying “The fact that I disagree with the reason for the page existing is proof that the reason the page exists is bad.”
Again. All your side did was assert it wasn’t good enough. That’s not an argument. That’s stating your position. You and your side think it’s not good enough. That’s all that happened. There was no general agreement that your position was a reasonable one, but you’re framing it as if that’s the case.
"It's fun" isn't a reason because we said so, it isn't a reason because it undermines the idea of even having standards or approaching things seriously in the first place. We can allow literally anything if we allow entertainment to be something that undermines actual standards, and that simply does not fly
And rules are definitely an argument, the whole point of rules is to describe what can or cannot happen somewhere and for an exception to be made, it has to justified in a logical and agreeable manner. It might not please everyone, but we aren't just going to stop prohibited certain things for the sake of upholding rules as if it isn't the normal thing to do
You'd then have to prove that the only reason why they thought "fun" wasn't a good reason was because they were against CH being kept, when it could very well just be that then not thinking that "fun" was a good reason was what led them to be against CH being kept. You're basically jsaying that everyone who thinks the reason is invlid is only doing so because they're biased against CH, which really can't be proven.
Yeah, it isn't 100% standard procedure nor the 100% common value held by this community... which is what I've been saying through this entire thread. Just give a good reason for the exception to be made, and it can be done just fine. You're once againa cting as if my argument was "the rules says so, end of story", when I'm really just asking you to provide a reason for an exception to be made, something you for some reason refuse to do.
It is true that information can be given in non-verbal ways, which is why it wasn't really a problem that you thought I made a slippery slope fallacy (heck, there was even a point in this thread in which I apparently got one of your arguments wrong, so I said sorry), the problem only arrived when you kept on accusing me of doing so even after I explained multiple times that I didn't; I've already explained that I've never made the argument you think I made, yet you refuse to just accept that you made a wrong assumption about my argumen and prefer to just continue to argue with a straw man.
Why do you have to care about me being convinced? You don't. I am just one person after all; people have the right to believe in whatever they want, and if they disagree with me, they have the full right to say so; however, I also have the right to defend my arguments, which is what I've been doing. I'm not above anyone here, and I don't know where you even got the idea that I thingk I am above anyone, I'm just a guy debating on a weird website.
Checkmate. See, “We can allow literally anything if we allow entertainment to be something that undermines actual standards, and that simply does not fly” is a slippery slope, Paulo. The fact that this response is the only reasonable conclusion to the opposition that “fun” is a reason is why I kept stating that this was a part of your claim. Because it’s the only reason for your claim to exist. You taking this position along with Andy implies not just that you agree with his slippery slope argument, but that your reasoning is to avoid the consequences he outlined in that fallacious argument. There’s no reason to assume that we’d just go gung ho with adding things in because “it’s fun”. This argument assumes that having exceptions is inherently the same as choosing to always disregard the rules. When that’s not how it’s done. I can marry whoever I want, man or woman or intersex, but just because I’m throwing tradition out the window, that doesn’t mean I’ll fuck an animal. Likewise, just because we’re letting composite human stay doesn’t mean we’ll give profiles to fan characters.
And Andy, by saying “it’s the normal thing to do”, you’re appealing to norms. Just because it’s “normal” doesn’t mean it’s smart, correct, or even justified. On top of that, the reason rules exist is to protect from the chaos of not having them, as per your slippery slope reasoning, not to simply outlaw actions for no other reason than to outlaw them. It stands to reason, as stated by Mori in the last thread, that if an exception does no harm, especially if it’s not any relevant to the purpose of the rule’s existence, it doesn’t need to be regulated. Because rules and regulations exist to quell chaos, and if an outlawed action does not cause chaos, the rule’s adherence is arbitrary.
Just like Blowjobs being illegal in Maryland and Heels w/o permits being ridiculous in California. You want people to be arrested and to follow a rule that does nothing good and only restricts? Because this is literally it...
That’s not my argument Paulo. I’m saying that they agree that it’s not a good reason, and therefore agree that CH should be removed since, to them, that bad reason is as good as no reason at all. Please do not try to twist my words according to that as a bias vs non biased statement. That’s, again, intentionally or unintentionally dishonest. And I don’t have to prove that they disagree with the reasoning if they do so by virtue of disagreeing with it staying. They don’t have to not like the page like you to not want it around, you see.
So, you first make an appeal to norms, and then you admit it’s not even 100% a norm? Lmao. What’s your point? And again, so what? That doesn’t support the decision to suddenly apply them to this evident exception at all. The rules are not by themselves logically compelling.
Your problem is that you didn’t change your position, which, as Andy demonstrates, is inherently justified by the slippery slope fallacious reasoning I keep “accusing you” of having. You can’t divorce yourself from the implications of your words just by saying that you don’t mean them. You have to not say the same thing over and over again, for starters.
Because you set yourself up as the person who needs to be convinced. Social cues kind of created that environment and now, like earlier, everyone is arguing against and supporting YOU. You stand here, attentive, and ready to refute any reason that dares Cross this thread, as if you believe your opinion is the final say on the matter. You even framed the discussion in such a way that it became relevant to consider your opinion with this “change my mind” shit. It’s... Not a stretch, much of what I said. You also haven’t defended anything. You merely appealed to norms and implicitly supported fallacious reasoning by arguing something that founded on an illogical conclusion.
Rules do not need to exist for the sole purpose of avoiding chaos, sometimes they are just the results of how something is defined and what its scope is. If we choose to define ourselves as a site that indexes fictional franchises then we should make an attempt to stick to that, exceptions have been made for the real world because those profiles can be used for reference and to a lesser extent mythology which is still like a collection of stories in a functional sense, real world will also function like a conventional verse as far as indexing is concerned
But the composites? They are literally just hypothetical ideas with no setting behind them or any kind of canon defining them, they are not what the site is for so either focus on expanding the scope of the site or giving some proper reasoning for allowing an exception, because a lot of the reasons given so far feel more like double standards and borderline demanding policies to be ignored, than any meaningful insight as to why the composite human is special, why he can be permitted when every other composite is out of the question
I simply don't believe that laws are absolute. Laws are created by humans, and therefore they are automatically imperfect in many ways. When these laws inferfere with the good of the people, they should either be discarded or altered.
I say all of that to say, I don't believe "rules are rules" are valid for deletion if most of the wiki wants to keep the page (And only if most want it to stay).
So, your argument is "they agree that it isn't a good reason, and therefore want CH gone because of that"... Yeah, that is how it works, and that does not invalidate their votes in any way. What's your point?
The point is that exceptions are very rare, and that there should be a good reason for an exception to be made. I've been repeating this ever since this thread began: an exception can be made, however, following the rules is the standard, so if you want an exception made, you need to provide a good reason.
Again using Andy's argument to argue against mine. Andy and I are two completely different and urelated people, and their argument is complately separate to mine. It doesn't "demonstrate" anything about my argument. I don't have to "divorce myself" from anyhing, because you were the one who made up that I ever made a slippery slope fallacy, when that was never part of my argument to begin with.
I'm not setting myself up as anything, I'm simply debating (you know, the entire reason this thread was made for). The fact that I reply to other people's arguments is just because that's the entire point of debating, and the fact that I'm very active here is just because I have a lot of free time, and spend most of it online, meaning I am very likely to get the notification from this thread as soon as it is sent. I really don't see why you're acting like me replying to people was a big deal, when discussing and debating is the entire point of the thread.
Composite Link isn’t from any canonical source staring him explicitly. Neither is Composite Godzilla. Sure, they exist as a part of a verse in terms of what they’re based on but they’re just as unofficial as CH. Hell, often times we refuse to make profiles for things that actually officially exist out of “redundancy” or it taking too much effort to do. Hence CC Goku not existing. The double standard for Composites— along with the rest of our decisions exist even without taking those Trees and shit into account, and having an exception in no way negatively impacts our purpose in any meaningful way. How can CH somehow tarnish our nature as a fiction categorization wiki when not just real life on its own, but the page itself says that their existence on this cite is Atypical? What’s more, it’s easier to have all of the best human stats and weapons on a profile than listed on a verse page in fragments. It’s also already done.
No one's arguing laws are absolute, but if you there aren't good reasons to ignore the laws then you shouldn't, it's a simple concept
CH was first excused because of popularity, and that's just a double standard, fun got brought up but that's also an extremely flimsy reason which can be made for literally any kind of profile that isn't allowed. Can you make exceptions to rules? Yes absolutely, what you cannot do is just point out rules aren't inflexible and expect it to mean something for a specific situation, when the actual reasons for ignoring a rule aren't very good
The point is, Paulo, that saying that is the same thing is saying that they hold their position. Again, having a position isn’t an argument or evidence against anything. You keep saying that “everyone” agreed that it wasn’t a good reason, when only your side did. This is saying that there was an overwhelming consensus on the thread accepts the premise you have, despite the fact that it is still in contention.
I’ve been repeating myself too! And I still don’t get what I’m asking for! :) I literally just gave you a chance to prove that you’re not being incompetent or dishonest. You still said “Norms are norms and it’s normal to follow them. Being abnormal is incorrect.” In so many words. I LITERALLY asked you to SPEAK for YOURSELF. I asked YOU to explain why YOU think what you do. And you refused. You MUST be dishonest. Because I refuse to believe you’re stupid. :D
...Yup. I refuse to believe you’re dumb because I’m nice, and even if you don’t understand anything that I say, I still think you’re capable of it.
Agreed? No. That argument was presented. There was no CONSENSUS or general agreement by both parties on that. In fact, it was hardly discussed for more than a couple posts. Jesus. Please stop stating your sides beliefs as “agreements”.
What differentiates the two? Fictional Composites don’t have a canon. They therefore don’t have a setting. They don’t have a story. They don’t even officially exist. They are fan fiction. They’re the same as CH.
I've been saing that most people agree, which is true, pretty much everyone in the thread agreed that it isn't a valid reason. Unless you want to accuse them of being biased (which you've stated that you do not want), then what side they're in is irrelevant.
What I think does not really matter, if it did, I would be biased. You say "norms" mockingly, but, yeah, the norms are what matter. Following the rules is the standard, so if you want an exception made, you need to provide a good reason. Just givve a valid reason for an exception to be made; I've been asking this for hours.
That’s just you presupposing laws and rules should be followed inherently, not proving a logically compelling argument for rules and the adherence to them.
Andy, is “because I like wearing high heels” not a good enough reason to break the law concerning those— you need a permit to wear em? Because you just keep stating your opinion rather than providing logic to it, and at this point, i’m genuinely curious how you handle day to day living with this in mind. No bullshit.
Amexim wrote: Agreed? No. That argument was presented. There was no CONSENSUS or general agreement by both parties on that. In fact, it was hardly discussed for more than a couple posts. Jesus. Please stop stating your sides beliefs as “agreements”.
Yes, there was a consensus in the thread about Real Life Composites, which is why the other Real Life Composites were deleted for this (among other) reasons. The only reason CH was made an exception was because of popularity.
I don’t think “everyone” agrees with you if you count everyone actually. Like, at some point, we held majority. And that was... Earlier before you discounted votes you didn’t find compelling.
So, this means I can continue to “accuse you” of being biased? Because, you know, you don’t care that appealing to norms is a fallacy? Ok. Cool. Then, why argue? You’re not defending your position at all. You’re just talking.
Anger. It’s from... Frustration. Very very frustrating, talking to you. But it was funny. I laugh. Ha.
So, wait, you understand what a consensus is now, but not when I tell you not everyone agreed with your other claim like you said? Because if you think those things are the same, they’re not, and that means I can disregard your affirmation because you think they’re the same things and what you think a consensus is isn’t one. If you understand what a consensus is, and you recognize you were incorrect before, you must be dishonest. Because that confirms you’re not ignorant.
I discounted FRA votes, since they provided no reasoning (and I did so for both sides), and votes based on "it's fun", since most people in the past thread agreed that wasn't a valid reason. It had nothing to do with me "not finding it compelling". Also, worth mentioning your side did not hold the majority before I removed the "it's fun" votes, it was tied, 15 agreed, 15 disagreed. The only point your side held the majorities as when the FRA votes for my side were removed, and minutes later, your FRA were removed as well and the sides tied.
Again, it would be a fallacy if I was saying "CH has to be deleted no matter what, because of the rules", but that's not what I'm saying. All I'm asking is for a valid reason to be given.
By "consensus", you mean he one about Real Life Composites not being comparable to Fictional Composites? That consensus had nothing to do with the previous thread, it was reached way before that, back in the thread were the other Composites were removed.
Real Life Composites not being comparable to Fictional Composites is not a consensus we got to while talking about whether CH should be deleted or not, it was already a consensus before that thread even started, and the other Real Life Composites were deleted for this (among other) reasons.
I doubt that you actually believe that, whether you belive me or not. Because it doesn’t make sense for you to arbitrarily require him to go if you’re not slippery sloping me. You WANT them to go. It’s not a hard conclusion to come to. Ugh.
Amexim wrote: You WANT them to go. It’s not a hard conclusion to come to. Ugh.
Yes, I do, and I have admited this ever since I first arrived in the previous thread; I hate CH... however, this has nothing to do with my arguments. If I was just letting myself go, and doing whatever I wanted, I wouldn't even give you a chance to give a reason as to why CH should be an exception, but I'm being unbiased, because my feeling towards the character are completely irrelevant. The reason why CH should be removed was because he does not follow the rules, simple as that, and I've been giving you dozens upon dozens of chances to explain why you think CH should be made an exception to the rules, yet you haven't been able to provide a valid reason.
Also, that does not prove that I made a slippery slope fallacy, me disliking CH does not make any of my arguments a slippery slope fallacy, and the only thing you have to "prove" that i made a slippery slope fallacy is your own assumptions you're making about me, even after I've said many times that you're assumptions are wrong. I did not make a slippery slope fallacy; if you want to argue against a slippery slope fallacy, go argue with Andy, because trying to argue with me about an argument I never made would be arguing against a straw man.
It fundamentally does have to do with your arguments. You don’t understand that just like how you don’t understand half of what i’m saying. I’ll say it once more.
If you don’t like something to that degree. It will be harder to convince you of anything to keep it around. It makes you biased. Your slippery slope fallacy comes from your likely belief that not following the rules and having bad exceptions to them leads to chaos. Nevermind the fact that it’s the only viable reason for your opposition. You REFUSED to answer my question when I asked you DIRECTLY. I’m only “putting words in your mouth” because you won’t TALK. I have reason to suspect you won’t answer because you KNOW that i’m not far off. If you have no reason for requiring a good reason to place an exception, you’re being more irrational than anyone who wants CH to stay. Clearly you have a reason for wanting a satisfactory justification, because not having a satisfactory justification means that we’ll keep breaking the rules for no reason. If Andy can’t think of a reason not to have bullshit justifications, and I can’t perceive one that makes sense, you definitely can’t.
Paulo, you won’t answer my question. If you don’t think having a bad or no justification to call CH an exception is wrong or incorrect, you wouldn’t have your position right now. It doesn’t take a genius to understand that it’s probably a bad idea because of exactly what Andy said. If that’s not your reasoning, then what is? I asked you not to give me a circular justification by saying “Rules is Rules” and you did anyway. You’re going to ignore this question aren’t you? Cool. Cause don’t bother answering. I already know the answer.
Yeah, because giving the other side dozens upon dozens of chances to provide evidence to their side, agreeing that CH being a blog post could work and literally removing 8 fucking votes from my own side is totally biased. Seriously, I am not biased, I am just waiting for an actual good reason to be given for CH to be an exception.
"Your slippery slope fallacy comes from your likely belief that not following the rules and having bad exceptions to them leads to chaos." Oh, you mean that believe I don't have?
By "I asked you DIRECTLY" you man the times you asked me why a reson is needed for an exception to be made? I've already answered this multiple times: Following the rules is the standard, so if you want an exception made, you need to provide a good reason.
Also, calling you own argument "bullshit justifications" does not help your case.
Amexim wrote: Paulo, you won’t answer my question. If you don’t think having a bad or no justification to call CH an exception is wrong or incorrect, you wouldn’t have your position right now.
I do think that... it just happens that it has nothing to do with slippery slope. Slippery slope would be if I said "making an exception this time will result in an exception being made many more times in the future", something I've never said, you just assumed that this was what I meant by your own accord.
I literally told you to give me an answer besides that garbage. And you still failed me. And I was trying to frame it from your point of view with that, whatever arguments you think aren’t good enough can come here. And evidently that’s basically true.
Following the rules just because they’re the rules, APPEALING TO NORMS is not a reason. The same way “fun” isn’t a logical reason. And not just in my opinion. Fundamentally a basic logical premise. It’s a fallacy. Following the rules just because that’s the normal thing to do (standard) is not a justification to do them, hence you having no reason to need an exception brcauseyou have no reason to follow the rules. You just do because you want to or think you’re supposed to (which is the same as wanting to). No matter how many times I say it, it won’t be words to you.
I... Please don’t be stupid. Just say you’re trolling.
Why do we need to have a reason for it then? To say that you need a reason without a reason for needing one is... Oh my god, just as illogical following rules because they’re rules...! I need to go fucking game end myself. I can’t. No more.
Fallacy would be if I said that the rules must be followed no matter what, and that exceptions couldn' happen. As I've said millions of times by now: exceptions can be made, as long as you have a good reason to do so. No good reason was given, so until it is, the standard is what is followed, AKA, the rules.
If you can't give a good reason for the rules to be broken, the rules must be followed. It's pretty simple.
Do you not get it?! You’re arguing “You can’t have an exception without a reason.” But that’s based in the idea that having an exception for no reason is bad or incorrect. But why is that bad? You can’t say, “because you’re supposed to follow the rules” to that, because “having an exception” is the same as “not following the rules”. Saying “you cannot break the rules without a reason because you’re supposed to follow the rules, because you are not supposed to break the rules” is circular reasoning. It’s irrational. Fallacious. And unwarranted. I... Please kill me.
Yes, “having an exception” is the same as “not following the rules”, in a way, but not really, since that's what exceptions are, exceptions. They're very irregular and rare, and can't simply be thrown around for no reason. If a page does not follow the rules, it must have a good reason not to be deleted.
Andy, do you think “I want to live my life and enjoy myself” is a good reason to break a rule that harms nothing?
This is an ultra vague question that can refer to any number of situations, but applying it specifically to this one:
The wiki isn't some personal property belonging to one member, it's a collective effort meant for the general public to use, bringing up how you want to enjoy your own life should have nothing to do with how policies within it are enforced. The page in question should also have nothing to do with your own personal well being, so that makes it even more questionable why you wishing to live your life has impact on why it should stay or go
You just gonna ignore the fact that your homie just...
I was talking about breaking a law in California that restricts high heels to those with permits. Would you wear them if you wanted, damn the fucking law? Or are laws meant to be followed because they’re laws?
That's a situation of how you use your own personal belongings and how you decide to live your own life. What we are discussing isn't the personal property of those who want to have fun, it's a wiki article handled by a community with the purpose of supplying information to everyone. It's not a good comparison and even if I advocated for breaking the rule there it wouldn't mean I would do the same here, when it's not your personal life being restricted, it's the content on a site anyone can contribute to
It's not fine, because it's breaking the rules. Real Life Composites are not allowed, and a page that isn't allowed can't be kept around just because "it's fun". By that logic, the other Real Lie Composites wouldn't have been deleted, since people thought they were fun as well.
The rules are a real reason. They are to be followed unless there is a good reason not to. Composite Human contains almost every single categories that got the other Real Life Composites deleted, so there's really no reason to keep him around.
"It hurts nobody" is not a valid reason, Composite Tree didn't hurt anyone and got deleted. Same thing with "it's fun".
Again, they are to be followed unless there is a good reason not to. Composite Human contains almost every single categories that got the other Real Life Composites deleted, so there's really no reason to keep him around.
You’re irrational. Ignore him. Paulo is not using logic.
“Rules are meant to be followed because they are rules.” Is not a logical argument. It’s not even a logical statement. I don’t even thing that’s an actual phrase with meaning. I can tell outside of this that you intend to communicate SOMETHING to justify your position, but this ain’t it.
You’re literally just asking us to agree with you. We ask you why we should follow the rules, and you just say “because you should!” That isn’t a REASON, that’s just you restating your premise. “Follow the rules!” “Why?” “Follow the rules!”
You’re either trolling or you’re stupid. I think the latter.
I literally did my best to give him the benefit of the doubt. Several times last night. He’s demonstrated that he is either bullshitting me or he’s got something wrong with him, because you can’t just not recognize circular reasoning. I tried SO hard. Very. Shit is ridiculous. It’s not just us not agreeing, it’s him not being reasonable. But I get the warning. Hm. Ok.
The very concept of rules is that you follow them unless an exception is justified, saying that you should do something because they are rules isn't circular reasoning, it's literally just applying the definition of words.
Putting it in the format of a usual circular reasoning does not prove anything, it does not make it so that it's the same thing as an argument made without reasoning, it's simply not allowing something that isn't allowed, and you just cannot expect someone to act otherwise till you give valid reasons for making an exception or change what constitutes as the rules in the first place
CH is just going to be moved to a blog where we can list feats of humanity there. There we still fufill the purpose of what a humanity profile was all about, using it as a general scale for real world humans.
He isn't going to JBW or FC, he will stay on this wiki, but just on a blog
The exception was already made. It’s your side that’s trying to change the current situation. It is YOUR job to provide a reason for us to follow the rule NOW. Because we weren’t following the rule before.
The reason why the exception was made before (popularity) was agreed not to be valid, so "the exception was already made" really doesn't work, since it was made for an invalid reason, and now it's your job to come up with a vlaid reason for the exception to continued being made.
I'm Blue daba dee daba die wrote: He was only kept for fun, but he still tried to serve as a purpose of indexing the feats of humanity.
So either we keep CH but blog him or we make a new respect thread style blog which details the feats
I think if the sole purpose of the blog is to index human feats it would be better to transform Composite Human's current profile to a respect-style page, yes. As hard as it may be for me to say that.
EDIT: On a second thought, I feel like while keeping Composite Human's former profile in a separate blog wouldn't do any harm, as GyroNutz says, I think it would be a little ineccesary if we're really doing what has already been mentioned.
So it seems the main reason for CH being removed is that it goes against a rule, despite it being agreed to be kept before. However, I would like to know what other issues it causes besides just being against a rule that people agreed to make an exception to anyways. Rules exist to prevent harm from being done in some way. If there's no other problem caused, then what exactly is the problem wifh making such exceptions? Why shouldn't we be able to decide for our own community that it's an okay thing to have? The concerns about equipment and prep time are in no way specific to CH, and contradictory compositing also applies to just about every composite.
Would go more but I'm tired and have tests, might sleep
I think the main controversy is Vs threads. To be fair, there's a lot of debate on whether he should be assumed to know the strengths and weaknesses of every single character on the wiki. Some claim that him "Knowing all fiction" is considered wank, while others say that he should otherwise he's not truly composite. And composite human was made as our exception to the calc stacking rule among other things iirc.
An exception was only agreed to be made due to his popularity, which most people agree not to be a valid reason, so we can't really say "people agreed to make an exception to anyways", because the reason the exception was made isn't valid, and no other reason has been given so far.
Personally, I'm more for keeping the Composite Human profile because personally, how can one actually tell how strong humans can be at their best? I mean we have the average joe who can lift his own weight, then we have professional boxers who can really land a powerful punch, football players who tackle, weightlifters in the Olympics who can do a couple hundred kilograms at best, and we have powerlifters who can do Class 5 lifting feats.
If you ask me, ideally separating between the average person and a skilled person would be more optimal for the profile. Basically add a key for an untrained human and a skilled person is what I'm saying. Of course it goes without saying that unskilled and skilled humans are 9-C via tackling, but an average joe isn't exactly 9-C in other fields. This is coming from an average joe.
Pretty much what I'm saying is keep the profile, but make it so that we get keys diffrentiating between an average joe and a skilled person like a professional boxer or whatever.
Composite Human breaks so many rules about the VSBW though. It's a composite, for one thing, which we actively ban on the site. For two, the traits of the Composite human are intentionally cherrypicked; that is, we pick all the strengths of genetic traits of other humans but none of the weaknesses. So CH is a really egregious profile to begin with and should most definitely not be allowed. (Let's not mention the fact that we had to excerpt CH from calc stacking. What rules doesn't CH break?)
There's also the fact that what exactly CH can and cannot do is really debateable since some of the genetic traits he has don't really make any sense at all. There's also the fact that people will argue amongst themselves what weaknesses the CH would have. Overall, Composite Human should just be a separate blog as another site, as it's existence is completely invalidated by all of the site's standards.
'but muh CH is popular' is a bullshit argument. There are several profiles that are popular and have gotten deleted; let's not start bringing up the Youtuber profile debates.
Honestly, I’m just going to offer my 2 cents on the issue.
Personally, I think that the Composite Human profile should be allowed, and that the necessity of this whole debate highlights a somewhat major issue. I think there’s a pretty big problem with how this is being approached.
While the “it’s fun” argument is overdone and quite silly... in a way, it’s not completely invalid in this debate. Many threads filled with some of the most interesting discussions on this website so far have been dedicated to the statistics for the Composite Human profile, and the subsequent applicability in Versus Threads. In the end, the reason people are so heavily involved in these discussions and evaluations is because it’s simply enjoyable, not for any more serious reason.
As such, we should be more focused on basing the rules around what makes for enjoyable and thought-provoking discussions for the users of this wiki, rather than basing the discussions around these strict, predefined rules. If things like the Composite Human profile contribute to the enjoyment and in-depth discussions present on this website, then it’s far more logical to base the rules around allowing these kinds of discussions rather than restricting them by treating the rules as law.
TL;DR: If the Composite Human profile is a source of genuine and thought-provoking discussion and it facilitates the enjoyment of the users, then it’s a far more reasonable course of action to change the rules to allow it rather than restrict it by using the current rules as a defence.
@Grath I have no problem if you want to try and improve the rules themeselves, but make sure you know what exactly that would entail. Composite human is a hypothetical idea, something that isn't truly part of the real world, and doesn't belong to any established fictional universe either, changing the rules likely means allowing all such kind of profiles
Now, the purpose of the site is indexing fictional franchises, the only reason for allowing real world profiles despite this is for reference purposes which an information blog will serve much better than a hypothetical character possessing all of humanity's strengths. Simply adding in "composite human can stay" to the rules and calling it a day will of course not be fine so the site itself will have to change so that it's scope isn't fictional franchises and whatever helps index those fictional franchises
Btw, on this topic we and Skalt are actually working on another wiki specifically tailored to indexing hypotheticals. Can't promise anything at the moment, but that may potentially be a place for profiles like CH to end up, if others are satisfied with that over changing this wiki's foundation
Honestly, the issue itself forays into the idea of how closely rules should be followed over personal needs, almost Lawful vs Chaotic kek. But in all seriousness, I’m not sure it’s possible we can really come to a conclusion regarding which takes priority in a discussion like this (hence the inconclusive votes), but it seems to me there isn’t much of a difference between CH’s existence and the other composites, so whatever can be said about CH can apply to them, so they may end up coming back.
Yobo Blue wrote: I think that would require a compromise more than just flat out denying it, especially since there is about as much support for CH going if not more. The separate wiki may be one good idea.
If the most recent vote tally is accurate, + all the new votes for CH staying, I think it's in favor of Composite Human staying.
Although, a compromise could be making a thread discussing the treatment of CH- e.g. how to treat contradictory traits and what-not.
I don't think any reason for CH staying that isn't a variation of 'it's popular' has been given, and that reason has already been debunked. It's already been irrefutbaly proved that CH is breaking a whole gigaton of important rules regarding characters and that it's a massive double standard.
I suggest that if we allow CH to stay on the site, we change our rules and allow other composite profiles to exist. Perhaps that would really mess things up, but at the very least CH would have a justifiable existence.
Also, these votes are questionable as many of them don't seem to have good reasonings for CH staying.
Moritzva wrote: @Ayewale A lot of reasons have been given. The thread’s just way too fucking long due to circular reasonings from both sides, that weeding them out is a nightmare.
Uh, this isn't an insult or jest in any way, but I really couldn't find any because this thread is several hundreds of posts long, my bad. but the CH post of the last thread stated that popularity was the main reason for CH's existence.
Right. As I said, the sea of circular reasoning from both sides has drowned out some nuance. There are plenty of invalid votes, surely, but those are on both sides.
As Wokistan put it-
I would like to know what other issues it causes besides just being against a rule that people agreed to make an exception to anyways. Rules exist to prevent harm from being done in some way. If there's no other problem caused, then what exactly is the problem wifh making such exceptions? Why shouldn't we be able to decide for our own community that it's an okay thing to have? The concerns about equipment and prep time are in no way specific to CH, and contradictory compositing also applies to just about every composite.
FRA is not valid unless they explain what the reasoning is, because otherwise the reasoning can't be checked if valid or not; and if anything, keeping FRA would just increase votes for the agree side".
Also, votes are not really all that matters.
"FRA" makes it impossible to tell what they're voting for, so we can't tell if its a valid reason or not. This thread has way too many arguments being thrown around (both valid and invalid) for FRA to be useble; we can't keep a vote if we don't know what the reasoning behind it is. And even if we did decide to use it, keeping FRA would just increase votes for the agree side more than anything.