Regarding the existence of Composite Human

[I'm_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die]

Why can't we just do what we did to barney and just disallow versus matches for CH and the article would just be a cool thing for people to see how we stack up compared to other characters.

Seems far better than to axe it or move it to a wiki that would just be a massive waste such as the Joke Battles, or FC OC, or the VS Wikis that barely anyone uses).

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Composite Human is not a part of real life. It's just a thought experiment that circles around people's most fitting and/or notable combat qualities and knowledge, and giving them all to a single human that would hypothetically has them. But it is also the most featured thought experiment in versus debating out of all of the thought experiments.

Its fate of staying on the wiki should largely depend of its notability, as in how it affects the fiction and how popular it is (in terms of how frequently it is being discussed). One thing that is certain is that it should be moved to a new verse; it being placed in the Real World clashes with the editing rules. Oh, and Composite Human doesn't include any of the non-original fiction as part of the experiment, otherwise it would have been definitely moved to FC/OC VS Battles Wiki.

Despite the Composite Human being (indirectly) mentioned in only a few philosophical works, it shows up the notability of the idea of the composite human.

I'd like to disagree with the deletion.

With all due respect Skalt, I don't think I can count that reasoning, since it's already been agreed thought experiments, philosophy ideas, and the like are not allowed on the wiki.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Why can't we just do what we did to barney and just disallow versus matches for CH and the article would just be a cool thing for people to see how we stack up compared to other characters.

Seems far better than to axe it or move it to a wiki that would just be a massive waste (Joke Battles, FC OC, the irrelevant VS Wiki's with 2 people still on it like characters profiles and stats and all the others).

Staff on FCOC refuse to host it iirc

 

[Moritzva]

Note: Although the Real World composite profiles are banned in the wiki due to being unrealistic thought experiments, we made an exception for Composite Human because of its immense popularity.

The reasons behind CH's existence are not some damn enigma nobody knows about.

I support CH staying on the wiki.

 

[I'm_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die]

...Neutral.
While all of the above is true, I think, there seems to be a distinguishing quality that Composite Human in particular possesses that differentiates it from other Composites. Put another way, there's a reason that you'll see, in other Vs Debating contexts beyond VsBW, such things as the idea of a Composite Human being cropping up, whilst "Composite [not-Human]" were, as far as I could tell, largely inventions of this site's imaginations themselves, which has them qualify more as belonging on FC/OC than the main site.

If Composite Human is to be axed from VsBW, at any rate, I'd ask it be transferred to FC/OC rather than deleted outright.

Moving it to the FC/OC Wiki would be a giant waste. It just doesn't have the same novelty of comparing wierd fanfiction characters with broken plots and just overall crap to us unlike comparing humanity to established and popular fictional characters

 

[Yobo_Blue]

The reasons behind CH's existence are not some damn enigma nobody knows about.

I support CH staying on the wiki.

We've addressed these reasons and spoken on their validity being questionable at best. I'd prefer if you at least said it was for the reasons above, because that was not the issue and really is a non-sequitur

 

[Moritzva]

We can't just have a character here because matches with them are fun though.

And could you say why?

If they are popular enough, are we really to be so stuck-up with the rules that we refuse anything, anything at all, that might say otherwise?

It wasn't long ago that **** game profiles were hotly contested. Years ago, by their standards and rules, Kyu Sugardust would of never have made it here. Yet, I know you stand firmly for that.

Why must we be so rooted in one position?

 

[Yobo_Blue]

And could you say why?

If they are popular enough, are we really to be so stuck-up with the rules that we refuse anything, anything at all, that might say otherwise?

It wasn't long ago that **** game profiles were hotly contested. Years ago, by their standards and rules, Kyu Sugardust would of never have made it here. Yet, I know you stand firmly for that.

Why must we be so rooted in one position?

None of those things have any correlation. I'd appreciate if you didn't use so many non-sequiturs. I hate to be rude, but nothing here has pertained to the actual arguments made,

 

[HeadlessKramerGeoff777]

I agree CH should be removed.

 

[Moritzva]

And could you say why?

If they are popular enough, are we really to be so stuck-up with the rules that we refuse anything, anything at all, that might say otherwise?

It wasn't long ago that **** game profiles were hotly contested. Years ago, by their standards and rules, Kyu Sugardust would of never have made it here. Yet, I know you stand firmly for that.

Why must we be so rooted in one position?

None of those things have any correlation. I'd appreciate if you didn't use so many non-sequiturs. I hate to be rude, but nothing here has pertained to the actual arguments made,

No, it's actually quite on-topic. Rules can be bent, and changed over time. And we've done it. Rules for what can and can not be added are bent constantly- one example being, **** profiles.

I see no reason to put a foot down on a profile that literally has a footnote of exactly why it exists.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Except that was a rule being changed rather than being bent. That's different from making exceptions to them. And we can indeed put our foot down if the reasons given for it's existence are poor and don't make logical sense.

 

[I'm_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die]

The most pressing argument is inconsistensy in VS Matches. But if that's the issue. Why don't we just keep the profile but just don't allow VS Matchups for CH. We did the same thing to barney.

I'm changing my vote from neutral to disagree. I think we just need to remove VS Matchups but keep the profile itself

 

[Yobo_Blue]

The most pressing argument is inconsistensy in VS Matches. But if that's the issue. Why don't we just keep the profile but just don't allow VS Matchups for CH. We did the same thing to barney.

I'm changing my vote from neutral to disagree. I think we just need to remove VS Matchups but keep the profile itself

The issues clearly go beyond the Vs Thread issues, and only those seem to have been addressed in any manner though.

 

[Jackythejack]

Basically what Yobo said. None of what I did was stretching the rules. I made a profile that was acceptable to what we decided in our current rules. We accept profiles from more mature games. Ain't my fault and it's certisnly not stretching the rules to make Kyu's profile as it's been established that she's okay.

It has also been established profiles like Composite Human are not okay, and yet there is CH

 

[I'm_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die]

What other issues for CH on this wiki besides VS Thread

 

[Yobo_Blue]

What other issues for CH on this wiki besides VS Thread

The ones mentioned in the OP.

 

[Moritzva]

Except that was a rule being changed rather than being bent. That's different from making exceptions to them. And we can indeed put our foot down if the reasons given for it's existence are poor and don't make logical sense.

So a rule being changed is somehow lesser than being bent? Bending something versus warping it completely?

OP: Also of note is the numerous issues in Standard Battle Assumptions the profile creates simply by existing. While it's not nearly as important as the above points, the fact is composite human causes many issues every time it is used for versus threads. Rules regarding prior knowledge that usually aren't enforced suddenly become deciding factors, standard equipment becomes difficult to quantify, and as Composite Human supposedly only uses positive traits, traits that have both positive and negative attributes are kept, removed, and cherry picked on different levels every battle. For these reasons, even assuming CH's status normally would give it a pass on the above hypocrisy, it's not nearly worth the trouble it causes in any event, and should thus be deleted.

These are not issues with CH, but with Battle Standards alone. Composite Human only readily showcases flaws in a flawed system; we don't have proper definitions of what can and can not be done with prep time as per SBA, which admittedly, we should.

Using "prior knowledge" and "SBA" as an argument is undoubtably flawed, as it's pinning a flawed system on Composite Human. Composite Human doesn't have SBA Manipulation. He can't create those issues if they aren't there in the first place.

This argument brings into question SBA, which I am more than glad to change. So, that entire portion of the argument is moot.

 

[I'm_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die]

So, the other big problem with CH existing is that it is against the reason why we have real world profiles in the 1st place

 

[Yobo_Blue]

@Moritzva

Yes, changing a standard is very different from making a single exception. One affects the wiki, while the other is a double standard.

Not so. Every other character on the wiki functions perfectly fine in SBA. CH is the outlier here (Though if you want to make a SBA thread that would also be good)

 

[Yobo_Blue]

So, the other big problem with CH existing is that it is against the reason why we have real world profiles in the 1st place

One of them at least, yes

 

[I'm_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die]

Ok then, it seems like we can resolve the "it can't be scaled so we can't have it" problem.

Why is scaling the only reason why we have real world profiles in the 1st place. In my opinion, it should be that real world profiles should be there so people can see how the real world stacks up against their favorite verses, not just as a benchmark.

Also, what is SBA

 

[Moritzva]

Yes, changing a standard is very different from making a single exception. One affects the wiki, while the other is a double standard.

Not so. Every other character on the wiki functions perfectly fine in SBA. CH is the outlier here (Though if you want to make a SBA thread that would also be good)

Absolutely incorrect. Plenty of bloodlusted characters with prep time cause confusion with what can and can be done. Anyone who can prepare lots of devices show this issue- Rick Sanchez versus Sans and the rules regarding prep time were quite important (albeit not the entire debate, what Sanchez could actually do was a topic).

To say it's Composite Human only is factually false. How can he create a flaw if there's no flaw to begin with? He doesn't have SBA Manipulation.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Absolutely incorrect. Plenty of bloodlusted characters with prep time cause confusion with what can and can be done. Anyone who can prepare lots of devices show this issue- Rick Sanchez versus Sans and the rules regarding prep time were quite important (albeit not the entire debate, what Sanchez could actually do was a topic).

To say it's Composite Human only is factually false. How can he create a flaw if there's no flaw to begin with? He doesn't have SBA Manipulation.

Confusion from people is a failure of the people to understand, not a inherent failure with the system

He is not creating any flaws. The issue is simply his nature does not work with the way the wiki works.

Ultimately this point doesn't really matter to the discussion as a whole, and can be considered a non-sequitur, so it may be a good idea to drop this, just as a warning.

 

[I'm_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die]

Also, Barney couldn't fit well with SBA or versus threads in general because we never saw his combat abilities used. All we did was ban people from making VS Threads for him.

I'll make a SBA thread tomorrow about how not fitting with SBA doesn't mean they should be axed. If CH gets voted to be cut by then, save his profile in a blog post,

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Also, Barney couldn't fit well with SBA or versus threads in general because we never saw his combat abilities used. All we did was ban people from making VS Threads for him.

I'll make a SBA thread tomorrow about how not fitting with SBA doesn't mean they should be axed. If CH gets voted to be cut by then, save his profile in a blog post,

This is true, but this is merely one of the reasons that CH should be axed, not the only one. It's just more evidence for him being too much trouble.

 

[Moritzva]

Why is it the people's faults for not comprehending a confusing, badly defined system? Much less, why is it Composite Human's fault?

Composite Human only exemplifies pre-existing issues.

...Yobo, the point is in your OP. If it's a non-sequitur, that means your own, very original argument, is a non-sequitur. Which, by the way, is true! And I agree. SBA has absolutely nothing to do with the removal of Composite Human and to use such as a reasoning is fallacious.

 

[Moritzva]

This is true, but this is merely one of the reasons that CH should be axed, not the only one. It's just more evidence for him being too much trouble.

Faulty evidence, yes. And you just admitted it's true here- plenty of other characters 'don't fit with SBA'. So, that entire argument is moot.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Why is it the people's faults for not comprehending a confusing, badly defined system? Much less, why is it Composite Human's fault?

Composite Human only exemplifies pre-existing issues.

...Yobo, the point is in your OP. If it's a non-sequitur, that means your own, very original argument, is a non-sequitur. Which, by the way, is true! And I agree. SBA has absolutely nothing to do with the removal of Composite Human and to use such as a reasoning is fallacious.

Because as it happens, people can make mistakes even if a system is perfect, and blaming the system is the wrong way to go about it

As I recall, this is your argument against its removal. Whether or not SBA is correct is not relevant. My point is his failure to work with our normal standards makes him more of a issue, and is not a definitive part of the argument anyway, as I noted in the Op.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

This is true, but this is merely one of the reasons that CH should be axed, not the only one. It's just more evidence for him being too much trouble.

Faulty evidence, yes. And you just admitted it's true here- plenty of other characters 'don't fit with SBA'. So, that entire argument is moot.

Plenty is a bit of a overstatement, and saying my argument is moot because of a single point would be a strawman even assuming it is correct, which it isn't, simply because whether or not it is exclusive to CH is not part of the argument.

 

[Moritzva]

So, your argument is that SBA is perfect, and that everyone else is wrong?

My point is that pointing out flawed standards is not remotely a reason for removal. As mentioned, we don't remove Barney or various prep time enthusiasts for this reason.

If it's not a definitive part of the argument, remove it from the OP. Adding fallacious evidence as your OP, and part of your argument, then saying "jk it's not actually part of the argument" when it gets debunked, does not convince me on your issue.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

So, your argument is that SBA is perfect, and that everyone else is wrong?

My point is that pointing out flawed standards is not remotely a reason for removal. As mentioned, we don't remove Barney or various prep time enthusiasts for this reason.

If it's not a definitive part of the argument, remove it from the OP. Adding fallacious evidence as your OP, and part of your argument, then saying "jk it's not actually part of the argument" when it gets debunked, does not convince me on your issue.

Not necessarily. My point is that pinning it on SBA isn't the best idea, especially when SBA is not relevant. And once again, it's exclusivity is not a factor here.

Supporting evidence is a thing that is necessary for every issue. And while it is part of my argument, it has not been debunked, nor would it matter if it was, simply because there is more to address than just that point.

 

[Moritzva]

Plenty is a bit of a overstatement, and saying my argument is moot because of a single point would be a strawman even assuming it is correct, which it isn't, simply because whether or not it is exclusive to CH is not part of the argument.

For one, that argument is a pillar of your overall thesis and point. There is no strawman in saying that, when one of those pillars falls apart, your overall argument is weakened. Don't build pillars you can't defend, dude. Don't add points to the OP, then backtrack when they're defeated.

 

[Moritzva]

Not necessarily. My point is that pinning it on SBA isn't the best idea, especially when SBA is not relevant. And once again, it's exclusivity is not a factor here.

Supporting evidence is a thing that is necessary for every issue. And while it is part of my argument, it has not been debunked, nor would it matter if it was, simply because there is more to address than just that point.

>SBA is not relevant.

You brought it up, dude.

How can you say it's not relevant, when you brought it up?

I firmly support Composite Human's inclusion in this wiki. Count my vote in the OP, if you haven't.

 

[Andytrenom]

By the way I don't think the versus thread point is that good either, I think the main reason for removing him would be the fact that composites aren't allowed and CH only gets away because of it's popularity, which is extremely questionable

 

[Yobo_Blue]

For one, that argument is a pillar of your overall thesis and point. There is no strawman in saying that, when one of those pillars falls apart, your overall argument is weakened. Don't build pillars you can't defend, dude. Don't add points to the OP, then backtrack when they're defeated.

You're assumption that they are pillars is fundamentally incorrect. As I stated in the Op itself, they are of little importance in the long run but are important to note for extremely detailed minute decisions like ones that are necessary for wiki standards in specific cases. Calling them pillars is blatantly misleading.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

By the way I don't think the versus thread point is that good either, I think the main reason for removing him would be the fact that composites aren't allowed and CH only gets away because of it's popularity, which is extremely questionable

This is true, versus threads were only more of a adddedum just in case anyone needed to know additional issues, which I noted in the OP.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Not necessarily. My point is that pinning it on SBA isn't the best idea, especially when SBA is not relevant. And once again, it's exclusivity is not a factor here.

Supporting evidence is a thing that is necessary for every issue. And while it is part of my argument, it has not been debunked, nor would it matter if it was, simply because there is more to address than just that point.

>SBA is not relevant.

You brought it up, dude.

How can you say it's not relevant, when you brought it up?

I firmly support Composite Human's inclusion in this wiki. Count my vote in the OP, if you haven't.

I didn't bring up SBA itself as you did. You were the one who made it about SBA rather than CH's failure to work with it.

I will add your vote tho

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Neutral about this, but CH as a concept doesn't break our wiki conventions. CH is the exception, not the rule. The Real World as a verse isn't even supposed to exist. It only exists as a guide to reference real world objects and creatures to their fictional counterparts or comparisons.

That being said, I have yet to see a verse that requires CH as a reference, so I'm still neutral.

Whether it stays or goes, as long as we remember why The Real World exists as a verse, I'm good.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Neutral about this, but CH as a concept doesn't break our wiki conventions. CH is the exception, not the rule. The Real World as a verse isn't even supposed to exist. It only exists as a guide to reference real world objects and creatures to their fictional counterparts or comparisons.

That being said, I have yet to see a verse that requires CH as a reference, so I'm still neutral.

Whether it stays or goes, as long as we remember why The Real World exists as a verse, I'm good.

Is there a particular reason we should allow this exception beyond "popularity?"

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Like I said, as a reference. The Real World as a verse exists solely to be a reference.