~Gardevoir~ Most Awesome Shield-Caster Ever. Or so.

[Shuma]

Leave them alone guys, not "ALL" of them are like that.

*Points at Fawriel*

See? that's a good specimen right there.

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

Leave them alone guys, not "ALL" of them are like that.

*Points at Fawriel*

See? that's a good specimen right there.

He's no longer pposting "go gardevoir" in this thread though is he?

 

[Shuma]

That's what i said.

 

[adumbrodeus]

You people are hilarious! How can you possibly think Gardevoir being in a pokeball doesn't deconfirm her? Seriously you need to take her off your sig and move on with your life! (This isn't an attempt to troll but to depict your stupidity)

Stop defining everything and it's mother as deconfirmation, there is no official word as to how being in a pokeball effects a character's status besides a lack of precedent for a character being in a pokeball and being playable.

You have no proof whatsoever that being a pokeball, or being a stage hazard, or being in the background of a stage merits deconfirmation, even Shuma admitted this.

This is not to say that Gardevoir is in the game, just not deconfirmed.

 

[Shuma]

What!? I didn't. Pokeball, Background, Trophy and Assit Trophy all deconfirm a character.

 

[vesperview]

Stop defining everything and it's mother as deconfirmation, there is no official word as to how being in a pokeball effects a character's status besides a lack of precedent for a character being in a pokeball and being playable.

You have no proof whatsoever that being a pokeball, or being a stage hazard, or being in the background of a stage merits deconfirmation, even Shuma admitted this.

This is not to say that Gardevoir is in the game, just not deconfirmed.

Wow, your ignorance is astounding... so everything in the game is a hoax until it's released? then why the hell do we check the dojo everynight? God stop your wishful thinking.

 

[xianfeng]

Apparantly she's useless. Not suprised really.

 

[adumbrodeus]

What!? I didn't. Pokeball, Background, Trophy and Assit Trophy all deconfirm a character.

Erm, yeah, you pretty much did.

*sigh*

Well since it appears you might need an official source to go to the bathroom i'll just rop this argument.

Also, congratulations Xianfeng, it seems you have an ally now.

Tantimount to admission that there was no official source to back up your assertion, which is the only proof there is in this case, so you admitted that there was no proof to back up your claim.

Wow, your ignorance is astounding... so everything in the game is a hoax until it's released? then why the hell do we check the dojo everynight? God stop your wishful thinking.

No, of course not, I'm not saying that, I'm saying that as far as absolutes in the game go, all we have is the official statements as to what is a deconfirmation.

Everything that they say is there is in the game, but people feel the need to draw associations between things that are not playable characters and the playable characters that will be in the game, sure you can say that this impacts their odds based on past patterns, and probably be correct, BUT WITHOUT AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT THAT SAYS EXACTLY THAT, YOU CANNOT BE ABSOLUTELY SURE OF ANYTHING IN BRAWL.

Assist trophies are absolutes, because there was an official statement that said they were. Character announcements obviously are. But vague associations between items and/or stage appearances and/or trophies, and/or whatever else are not absolute. They affect probability, but they never hit 100% or 0%.

 

[xianfeng]

Pokeball = Asssist Trophy.

 

[vesperview]

Erm, yeah, you pretty much did.




Tantimount to admission that there was no official source to back up your assertion, which is the only proof there is in this case, so you admitted that there was no proof to back up your claim.



No, of course not, I'm not saying that, I'm saying that as far as absolutes in the game go, all we have is the official statements as to what is a deconfirmation.

Everything that they say is there is in the game, but people feel the need to draw associations between things that are not playable characters and the playable characters that will be in the game, sure you can say that this impacts their odds based on past patterns, and probably be correct, BUT WITHOUT AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT THAT SAYS EXACTLY THAT, YOU CANNOT BE ABSOLUTELY SURE OF ANYTHING IN BRAWL.

Assist trophies are absolutes, because there was an official statement that said they were. Character announcements obviously are. But vague associations between items and/or stage appearances and/or trophies, and/or whatever else are not absolute. They affect probability, but they never hit 100% or 0%.

a demo is as official as a dojo deconfirmation, you people are saying that until the game's released they could change their mind about almost anything in the game, that's a bunch of bull****.

 

[Shuma]

No.... i dropped the argument 'cause i knew no matter what i said you would still say "there's no official source that says that".

 

[adumbrodeus]

Pokeball = Asssist Trophy.

Was that on Dojo, or your own deduction?

 

[vesperview]

No.... i dropped the argument 'cause i knew no matter what i said you would still say "there's no official source that says that".

a demo is official enough in my book, people act like the demo videos are some kind of pirated copy not authorized by Nintendo, what's on the demos will be in the game and people need to stop being in such denial.

 

[Shuma]

My comment was directed at adumbrodeus. For saying i agreed with him, wich i clearly, did not.

@adumbrodeus

Pokeball=Assit trophy, also it seems you're stupid enough that you need Sakurai to tell you what is deconfirmed and what is not.

 

[adumbrodeus]

a demo is as official as a dojo deconfirmation, you people are saying that until the game's released they could change their mind about almost anything in the game, that's a bunch of bull****.

No, because the demo only showed Gardevoir as a pokeball pokemon, and since it doesn't have the whole rooster anyway, a lack of appearance as a playable character means nothing.

I'm not saying that they could change their mind, merely that the demo does not contain an inherent deconfirmation for Gardevoir.

No.... i dropped the argument 'cause i knew no matter what i said you would still say "there's no official source that says that".

Exactly, because you have no official source, plain and simple.


The whole "any non-player character appearence equals deconfirmation" is a good example of a lie repeated often enough that everyone thinks it's true.

a demo is official enough in my book, people act like the demo videos are some kind of pirated copy not authorized by Nintendo, what's on the demos will be in the game and people need to stop being in such denial.

Which I never disagreed with, it's just that while it's official, it does not deconfirm her, it only confirms her in a role that is not tantimount to deconfirmation as a playable character.

My comment was directed at adumbrodeus. For saying i agreed with him, wich i clearly, did not.

Stop straw-manning me, I did not say that you agreed with me, I said that you admitted a lack of POSITIVE PROOF, which you did.

Pokeball=Assit trophy, also it seems you're stupid enough that you need Sakurai to tell you what is deconfirmed and what is not.

Again, prove that statement with official sources.


I'm not stupid enough to need anything, I'm INTELLIGENT enough to recognize the difference between a very low probability and deconfirmation.

 

[Shuma]

I'm INTELLIGENT.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that, you might be the President of the united states of America someday.

 

[vesperview]

Wow ignorance is hard to beat, again Sakurai doesn't think people are this stupid, you don't need an official deconfirmation of something that is obviously deconfirmed! Gardevoir is as deconfirmed as Mario confirmed to be a playable character, but it won't get through your thick skull.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Yeah, keep telling yourself that, you might be the President of the united states of America someday.

Taking a few words out of context and making a post for the sole purpose of flaming, sure it take a brainiac to do that.....

*Sigh* I'm not saying that either character is in the game, I'm pointing out that your argument flies in the face of basic logic and rhetoric and if you make a minor change from "impossible" to "extremely unlikely" you would have a perfectly sound argument.

Wow ignorance is hard to beat, again Sakurai doesn't think people are this stupid, you don't need an official deconfirmation of something that is obviously deconfirmed! Gardevoir is as deconfirmed as Mario confirmed to be a playable character, but it won't get through your thick skull.

As I said in the other thread, you're deducing a person's mental state, that is never 100%.

It's not ignorance, it's extremely fine clarification, just like in limits when h approaches zero it is not truly zero, just infinitely close to 0 . Most of the time, there is no need to make such fine clarifacations, but if you're a calculus student doing limits, you'll understand how important they can be.

I don't need an official deconfirmation to tell me that Tom Nook and Gardevoir are extremely unlikely, BUT I do need one to tell me they are impossible.

 

[Shuma]

Dear god... by your logic Zero is not Zero unless god(divine creature/scientist/sakurai) tells you that Zero is Zero.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Dear god... by your logic Zero is not Zero unless god(divine creature/scientist/sakurai) tells you that Zero is Zero.

I know you meant to be sarcastic (ok, 99.9999999% chance), but you're actually correct.

Please take calculus and you'll understand why.


Also .999999...... (decimal point followed by an infinite string of 9s) equals 1.

 

[Shuma]

Holy ****.. you really are stupid, instead of using your numbers try to use common sense when dealing with the human mind.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Holy ****.. you really are stupid, instead of using your numbers try to use common sense when dealing with the human mind.

Ok, then take psych and you'll understand that the human mind is not perfectly predictable, no matter what the case. It only becomes (reasonably) predictable over large numbers of people.


EVERYONE is an outlier mentally speaking in some area, usually more then one, making perfect accuracy with any individual impossible, even after decades of knowing the person.

That's REAL sense, common sense just covers the majority of cases.

 

[Shuma]

" common sense just covers the majority of cases."

Well... uhhh... duh.

Seriously, never ever again talk to me, if you draw me again into this diabolical conversation i will just ignore you.

 

[adumbrodeus]

" common sense just covers the majority of cases."

Well... uhhh... duh.

Seriously, never ever again talk to me, if you draw me again into this diabolical conversation i will just ignore you.

The point is that it's not meant to deal with statistical outliers, which happen often enough in the human mind that knowing the cases is worthwhile, even for the layman.


And stop being so dramatic, if you didn't enjoy it, why participate? It's also quite the mature attitude to take.....

 

[Mr. Ocax]

" common sense just covers the majority of cases."

Well... uhhh... duh.

Seriously, never ever again talk to me, if you draw me again into this diabolical conversation i will just ignore you.

It's called "blind hope."

 

[adumbrodeus]

It's called "blind hope."

Nah, as I pointed out, this particular character, while pretty cool isn't a particular favorite. I just was pointed out the ignored distinction between impossible and highly improbable, psychology and math-wise.



I recognize that there is very little chance for an actually appearance, certainly not enough to pin hopes on, but still, it's a non-zero chance (probably 1%).

 

[Break]

No, because the demo only showed Gardevoir as a pokeball pokemon, and since it doesn't have the whole rooster anyway, a lack of appearance as a playable character means nothing.

Did this make anyone else lol? She's not playable, get over it. Unless you're willing to put your money where you're mouth is then why even argue about it?

EDIT: I don't mean to come across as a d*** but seriously, this little tiff between you two has gone on for long enough.

 

[NessOwnsYou]

Would you two stop acting like freaking babies and stop fighting.

One Shuma is right, Gardevoir has been deconfirmed as a PC but as a Pokeball but no need to attack him because he wants a real Update saying saying Garde is a PP since he wants to know for sure even tho we got a GI article and a Video deconfirming her. Also thank you Mr. Ocax for breaking the tension and saying the truth, adumbrodeus has blind hope but doesn't everyone.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Did this make anyone else lol? She's not playable get over it. Unless you're willing to put your money where you're mouth is then why even argue about it?

And why the hell would I bet on a 1% chance character?

Would you two stop acting like freaking babies and stop fighting.

One Shuma is right, Gardevoir has been deconfirmed as a PC but as a Pokeball but no need to attack him because he wants a real Update saying saying Garde is a PP since he wants to know for sure even tho we got a GI article and a Video deconfirming her. Also thank you Mr. Ocax for breaking the tension and saying the truth, adumbrodeus has blind hope but doesn't everyone.

We were debating, or at least I was, there's a difference.


And for the entheenth time, I do NOT have blind hope, I'm just pointing out two truths, one mathematical and one psychological, quite frankly, it two me all of .02 seconds to get over Garde getting bumped into the 1% or less possibility category, she'd be a cool concept, but nothing I'm invested in.

I'm going to reiterate a few mathematical definitions by quoting a previous post of mine.

Possibile: Any case where an event has probability greater then zero, absolute laws have made it impossible.

Low probability: Usually reletive, but in general events that are unlikely to occur, usually less then 25% but always great then zero. An example would be .00000000000000000000000000000000001%. In practice can be indistinguishable from impossible in effect except after many tests.

Impossible: Any event with a zero probability, deemed by absolute laws.



As you can see, no absolute rule of the system (aka, Sakurai's rules which he say fit to tell us) deemed either event impossible, and since probability is a sum of the unknown factors, the event has a LOW probability.

And one psychological: no deduction in regards to the human mind is 100% accurate, ever.

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

would you just stop it. You are making everyone who has ever posted in this thread look bad. Using flowery words (tantimount? I mean, yes, it's a word and yes, it's beig used correctly. However, when you use words like that and people reading it actually can use those words, it becomes obvious that you are only using them to sound smart but it's failing) using cited logic (oh yes I take calculus and psychology... and for your info I've taken and aced both classes so stop trying to hold that above people.)
It's not accomplishing anything, the problem is that what you are saying is just plain wrong. It's so wrong that it's irritating and the fact that you think that trying to sound smart will help your case is just hurting it. Lot's of charcters jave been deconfirmed and lot's of people have taken it gracefully (I'm proud of my fellow Lyn fans for taking her deconfrimation so well). Why don't you take a page from their book and stop embarassing the Gardevoir fans that aren't insane.

oh and by your logic .999999 =1 right.
well, in that case, .00000001=0.... so gardevoirs chances are 0
and with a 0% chance it is impossible sorry. She's out

and your whole conclusion involving the fact that no deduction regarding the human mind is 100%... yeah here's where that fails:
that quote means that nobody truly knows how the mind works because nobody can really see what's happening inside of it. I mean we can measure some electric impulses and such but we really have no idea... and that's a correct statement.
The problem is that that statement in no way parallels the gardevoir thing as she is not in any way shape or form an aspect of the human mind.

 

[Fawriel]

The one thing people are gleefully quick to jump to conclusions about is whether someone is stupid.

What a disappointing turn of events. I might have to ask for the thread to be closed after producing a "grand finale", so idiots don't keep trolling it.

By the way, adumbrodeus is not dumb. He's using good logic. I'm not in the mood to verify whether it's completely valid, but he's using logic. If any of you still interpreted his posts as "blind hope" after several times, that just goes to show that you did not understand what he was saying.
Which probably speaks more for dumbness than making it a hobby to argue about lost causes for fun.

 

[PrettyGoodYear]

Good Common Sense > All mathematical probability

You don't need half a neurone to know that Gardevoir has been deconfirmed.

 

[MysticKenji]

well, in that case, .00000001=0....

While the rest of your post is good, this part loses.

.99999...9 = 9/9 = 1
However, .000...1 = 1/100....000 =/= 0

 

[~N9NE~]

While the rest of your post is good, this part loses.

.99999...9 = 9/9 = 1
However, .000...1 = 1/100....000 =/= 0

In response to that:

1+1=2

 

[error_alt_delete]

too bad she/he was made a pokeball pokemon.

 

[adumbrodeus]

would you just stop it. You are making everyone who has ever posted in this thread look bad. Using flowery words (tantimount? I mean, yes, it's a word and yes, it's beig used correctly. However, when you use words like that and people reading it actually can use those words, it becomes obvious that you are only using them to sound smart but it's failing) using cited logic (oh yes I take calculus and psychology... and for your info I've taken and aced both classes so stop trying to hold that above people.)
It's not accomplishing anything, the problem is that what you are saying is just plain wrong. It's so wrong that it's irritating and the fact that you think that trying to sound smart will help your case is just hurting it. Lot's of charcters jave been deconfirmed and lot's of people have taken it gracefully (I'm proud of my fellow Lyn fans for taking her deconfrimation so well). Why don't you take a page from their book and stop embarassing the Gardevoir fans that aren't insane.

I'm a Lyn fan, she's the character that I cared about, but you haven't heard a peep from me about her.... Why? Because, there's actually an official statement which says assist trophies are deconfirmations, it was on dojo a while back. She was really the only character that I truly cared about that has been deconfirmed (or close to).

And I am using tantamount correctly, it means equivilent in value, signifigance, or relationship.

oh and by your logic .999999 =1 right.
well, in that case, .00000001=0.... so gardevoirs chances are 0
and with a 0% chance it is impossible sorry. She's out

WTF!

.9999999 is NOT 1! EVER! EVER! EVER! EVER!

Neither is .99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

Only .9999... because the "..." shows that there are infinite 9s following the decimal point. A decimal point followed by any finite number of nines, no matter how high the number is, never, ever equals one.

Same is true for .00001 equalling zero, obviously, it's a discrete number.

and your whole conclusion involving the fact that no deduction regarding the human mind is 100%... yeah here's where that fails:
that quote means that nobody truly knows how the mind works because nobody can really see what's happening inside of it. I mean we can measure some electric impulses and such but we really have no idea... and that's a correct statement.
The problem is that that statement in no way parallels the gardevoir thing as she is not in any way shape or form an aspect of the human mind.

The point I was making by that, if you had bothered to read, is that there is no official statement which says that pokeballs are deconfirmations.

People assume it is, which is logical, but not perfectly accurate, because they're making deductions. Thus my point that deductions are not perfectly accurate comes into play when dealing with the human mind.

The one thing people are gleefully quick to jump to conclusions about is whether someone is stupid.

What a disappointing turn of events. I might have to ask for the thread to be closed after producing a "grand finale", so idiots don't keep trolling it.

By the way, adumbrodeus is not dumb. He's using good logic. I'm not in the mood to verify whether it's completely valid, but he's using logic. If any of you still interpreted his posts as "blind hope" after several times, that just goes to show that you did not understand what he was saying.
Which probably speaks more for dumbness than making it a hobby to argue about lost causes for fun.

Thank you, at least somebody is reading.

This is probably more of a case of an intellectual foil then actually arguing..... Or OCD, I'll let you folks decide.

Good Common Sense > All mathematical probability

You don't need half a neurone to know that Gardevoir has been deconfirmed.

In the majority of cases, but not all cases.

Especially when dealing with, as I said, deductions of another person's intentions you get a statistically signifigant % error.

But mathematical probability covers all possible cases whereas common sense only the majority so...

Mathematic probability>common sense.

 

[LightLink17]

Okay guys. Really. Adumbrodeus is right. Completely and totally. The end. Let's try not to insult him either, considering his correctness.

Also .999999...... (decimal point followed by an infinite string of 9s) equals 1.

I find that so annoying.

 

[RDK]

*SLAPS FOREHEAD*

Looks like Lightlink brought some of his trolling friends to SWF. Here we go again.

People assume it is, which is logical, but not perfectly accurate, because they're making deductions. Thus my point that deductions are not perfectly accurate comes into play when dealing with the human mind.

What? Deductions, at this point, are all we have. Do you honestly think we (or Sakurai when choosing who goes into Brawl, for that matter) are going to think about this mathematically? Probably not.

In the majority of cases, but not all cases.

Especially when dealing with, as I said, deductions of another person's intentions you get a statistically signifigant % error.

But mathematical probability covers all possible cases whereas common sense only the majority so...

Mathematic probability>common sense.

Again....this isn't a lesson in chaos theory, this is making an educated guess at who's making it into a video game based on the given information. You're taking this WAY too seriously.

 

[LightLink17]

Again....this isn't a lesson in chaos theory, this is making an educated guess at who's making it into a video game based on the given information. You're taking this WAY too seriously.

You're right. It's an educated guess. It is not fact. You can say all you want that it is "likely" or that "it appears to be the case" or that "the chances are high" but you simply don't have the facts to say that it "is."

And that is the point. He is right.

 

[RDK]

You're right. It's an educated guess. It is not fact. You can say all you want that it is "likely" or that "it appears to be the case" or that "the chances are high" but you simply don't have the facts to say that it "is."

And that is the point. He is right.

I know he's right. Clearly he's right--a guess is not truth. It's a guess.

I'm just pointint out the fact that all we're doing is simply guessing based on what we have. Unless the person you were arguing with for some reason believed that there is a 100% chance a character would make it in....

There's no such thing as a 100% chance.