• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Deleting/Completely Rewriting the Reality-Fiction Interactions page

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for trying to have this thread be finished, but I had the last comments here, so please don't call me if I don't have responses.
 
I can't say I blame him for considering to close this for the reasons given but I'm not sure if it would be fair given that I would need to refamiliarize myself with the matter too, then grab everything that matters and rewrite it into a new thread, which is more work in my part.

On the last bit, I will more or less quote myself from my "last" comment: "something that seriously stuck to me from this thread was the

I maintain that you can't make a sentience based criteria for fiction. Fiction could have as much sentience as reality. Or maybe not, but that isn't for us to decide.
Click to expand...

mindset. It's not that part written but the argument as a whole, it's contradictory and oppressive to argue that we can't decide on something while actually leaving as a standard a decided take on the manner."

So it's "offensive as to debate which religion one should adhere to" but it's not to, again, already have as a standard a decided take on the manner? No, that's nonsensical. The fact that we as a wiki need to have standards on what is or isn't fiction means that all topics that cover it can be up to debate, always, subject to potential change and reason & logic against it, not just leaving it at the rules already set in stone about it.
 
IdiosyncraticLawyer said:
@Eficiente I had a conversation with DT about finishing this thread. What do you think?
Click to expand...
Eficiente said:
I can't say I blame him for considering to close this for the reasons given but I'm not sure if it would be fair given that I would need to refamiliarize myself with the matter too, then grab everything that matters and rewrite it into a new thread, which is more work in my part.

On the last bit, I will more or less quote myself from my "last" comment: "something that seriously stuck to me from this thread was the



mindset. It's not that part written but the argument as a whole, it's contradictory and oppressive to argue that we can't decide on something while actually leaving as a standard a decided take on the manner."

So it's "offensive as to debate which religion one should adhere to" but it's not to, again, already have as a standard a decided take on the manner? No, that's nonsensical. The fact that we as a wiki need to have standards on what is or isn't fiction means that all topics that cover it can be up to debate, always, subject to potential change and reason & logic against it, not just leaving it at the rules already set in stone about it.
Click to expand...
@Antvasima What do you think about this?
 
Eficiente said:
On the last bit, I will more or less quote myself from my "last" comment: "something that seriously stuck to me from this thread was the



mindset. It's not that part written but the argument as a whole, it's contradictory and oppressive to argue that we can't decide on something while actually leaving as a standard a decided take on the manner."

So it's "offensive as to debate which religion one should adhere to" but it's not to, again, already have as a standard a decided take on the manner? No, that's nonsensical. The fact that we as a wiki need to have standards on what is or isn't fiction means that all topics that cover it can be up to debate, always, subject to potential change and reason & logic against it, not just leaving it at the rules already set in stone about it.
Click to expand...
You can't seriously expect us to make a ruling on the matter "does free will exist".
Contrary to what you say we don't have a standard on the matter and I don't intend to implement one either. We leave the existence of true free will and which consequences it has to each fiction to decide. Which is why we neither can have a rule based on the assumption that free will exists and works a certain way nor the assumption that it doesn't exist.
If the verse specifies that its own reasoning on the matter contradicts R>F that's another issue, but that is covered by the usual rules regarding verses explicitly contradicting themself or our assumptions.
 
Last edited:
DontTalkDT said:
You can't seriously expect us to make a ruling on the matter "does free will exist".
Click to expand...
Yes, portraying it as something outrageous doesn't mean that it is. I find your reasons for it terrible.
DontTalkDT said:
Contrary to what you say we don't have a standard on the matter and I don't intend to implement one either. We leave the existence of true free will and which consequences it has to each fiction to decide. Which is why we neither can have a rule based on the assumption that free will exists and works a certain way nor the assumption that it doesn't exist.
If the verse specifies that its own reasoning on the matter contradicts R>F that's another issue, but that is covered by the usual rules regarding verses explicitly contradicting themself or our assumptions.
Click to expand...
Not having a standard on something is a standard in of itself in this case. It means that it's always going to be win the decisions commonly agreed upon because that's normalized to be the right thing to do. Again, this something that isn't subject to potential change and to ever have reason & logic against it. I'm sorry but you're way over your head if you're not able to understand this. It's oppressive as I said before, even if I claim no intentional ill will from your part, in order to be honest it has to lay down the rules we follow on words in a page, like with any other thing.

Whatever that may end up looking like, it may or may not be something I disagree with, since I basically believe that the relationship between reality & fiction is abused by people on how it's interpreted to get insanely high stats and that sensical rules on how sentience in fiction can be next to in reality would annihilate part of what they were doing so far. Even it ends up saying something I disagree with, that's fine, it means I don't have to debate verse by verse stuff that we as a wiki had already taken decisions over but kept to ourselves, and that in the future if I were to hypothetically have time or anyone with more resources wanted to tackle this, they could. It doesn't even matter if that would do something.
 
Last edited:
Eficiente said:
Yes, portraying it as something outrageous doesn't mean that it is. I find your reasons for it terrible.

Not having a standard on something is a standard in of itself in this case. It means that it's always going to be win the decisions commonly agreed upon because that's normalized to be the right thing to do. Again, this something that isn't subject to potential change and to ever have reason & logic against it. I'm sorry but you're way over your head if you're not able to understand this. It's oppressive as I said before, even if I claim no intentional ill will from your part, in order to be honest it has to lay down the rules we follow on words in a page, like with any other thing.

Whatever that may end up looking like, it may or may not be something I disagree with, since I basically believe that the relationship between reality & fiction is abused by people on how it's interpreted to get insanely high stats and that sensical rules on how sentience in fiction can be next to in reality would annihilate part of what they were doing so far. Even it ends up saying something I disagree with, that's fine, it means I don't have to debate verse by verse stuff that we as a wiki had already taken decisions over but kept to ourselves, and that in the future if I were to hypothetically have time or anyone with more resources wanted to tackle this, they could. It doesn't even matter if that would do something.
Click to expand...
@DontTalkDT
 
Eficiente said:
Yes, portraying it as something outrageous doesn't mean that it is. I find your reasons for it terrible.

Not having a standard on something is a standard in of itself in this case. It means that it's always going to be win the decisions commonly agreed upon because that's normalized to be the right thing to do. Again, this something that isn't subject to potential change and to ever have reason & logic against it. I'm sorry but you're way over your head if you're not able to understand this. It's oppressive as I said before, even if I claim no intentional ill will from your part, in order to be honest it has to lay down the rules we follow on words in a page, like with any other thing.

Whatever that may end up looking like, it may or may not be something I disagree with, since I basically believe that the relationship between reality & fiction is abused by people on how it's interpreted to get insanely high stats and that sensical rules on how sentience in fiction can be next to in reality would annihilate part of what they were doing so far. Even it ends up saying something I disagree with, that's fine, it means I don't have to debate verse by verse stuff that we as a wiki had already taken decisions over but kept to ourselves, and that in the future if I were to hypothetically have time or anyone with more resources wanted to tackle this, they could. It doesn't even matter if that would do something.
Click to expand...
@Antvasima @Eficiente Given how DT genuinely doesn't want to keep engaging here and wants to make a new thread to tackle the unaddressed points, but nobody seems to want to summarize it all for us, what should we do?
 
Well, anyone who agrees with him and sees things his way can explain how a disagreement to my comment would look like. Obviously I believe that his reasoning comes from an unhealthy amount of dogmatism for him to come up with how he wants things to be, unpleasant as that is to hear. If there is a procedure of how to do & analyze things then it is perfectly reasonable to ask that to be written down, and it is needlessly destructive to decline that.

For reference, pages to do real life procedures and the like may explain things super clearly and with drawings or dynamic graphic designs when talking about things only adults would see, and we're some wiki anyone can enter to be a part of. I just don't know in what other way to explain it, it seems too ludicrous to me but it would help if they would talk some more about it.

If nobody says anything, we may still need to forget about this thread and I may need to bring it up far, far into the future, which would ask the most out of me. It's not unreasonable to see if things can turn out better on their own.
 
DontTalkDT said:
You can't seriously expect us to make a ruling on the matter "does free will exist".
Contrary to what you say we don't have a standard on the matter and I don't intend to implement one either. We leave the existence of true free will and which consequences it has to each fiction to decide. Which is why we neither can have a rule based on the assumption that free will exists and works a certain way nor the assumption that it doesn't exist.
If the verse specifies that its own reasoning on the matter contradicts R>F that's another issue, but that is covered by the usual rules regarding verses explicitly contradicting themself or our assumptions.
Click to expand...
I think that DontTalk makes sense above.

Have we applied all of the accepted revisions here? If so, I think that we can likely close this thread now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ultima_Reality
  • Locked
On the Many, Many Incoherences of the Tiering System
12 13 14
Replies
530
Views
151K
Ultima_Reality
Ultima_Reality
Firestorm808
Acceptable Narrative Examples of "Uncountably Infinite" Addition to the Tiering System Explanation Page
Replies
19
Views
3K
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
Jozaysmith?
  • Locked
Regarding Beyond-Dimensional Existence current standards
Replies
4
Views
1K
Ultima_Reality
Ultima_Reality
Ultima_Reality
Some questions about Reality-Fiction Transcendence
Replies
10
Views
3K
Iamunanimousinthat
Iamunanimousinthat
PrinceofPein
  • Locked
A Small Change to the Reality-Fiction Interaction Page
Replies
37
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top