Board Thread:Wiki Management/@comment-34634523-20180313212625/@comment-26198742-20180314033044

The Rule simply needs to be updated so that it clarifies what it means exactly as this entire issue was another point of contention for Anakin and Darth Vader as people would debate on whether or not Anakin should get his own page rather than share a Page with Darth Vader since both are considered "Different" characters despite being the same person with it ultimately ending with it being decided for them to simply share a page as at the end of the day regardless of if they're different characters they are still the SAME person and They are considered Alternate Forms as both while are technically the same person they are ultimately considered by many people to be two different characters due to their different personalities and such but it would make no sense to give them two different pages as they are ultimately the same persons.

Transformations like Super Sayian don't offer anything different, the characters. The Super Sayian form making them savage is a personality change that is quickly negated after the form is mastered and it is made pretty clear as DBZ and DBS went on that the increase savageness and viciousness is usually non-existent by the time the form is completely mastered which is demonstrated a lot and the abilities it uses are the same as what the base form of the characters use simply stronger and any abilities that IS used in the Super Sayian form eventually ends up being utilized by characters in their base form making nothing more than a transformation that slightly alters their physical appearance and increase their power not a totally different person as with the case of characters like Link, Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker, and numerous other characters.

As for what I said about rules being taken to literal because it's not Black and White at all in all honesty.

When a rule says something, it’s often taken in a way that because the Rule says exactly that it means exactly that so it’s often treated because it says that then it is often assumed that what it says applies to everything when it doesn’t because there are very clear exceptions from the rule in question and they are often ignored because the rule is usually taken exactly how it says instead of the rule being looked at in a way where instead it’s focus on WHAT the rule says instead of what QUALIFIES in regards to that rule. The problem with Rule 12 is simply is the fact that it doesn’t SPECIFY what qualifies and what doesn’t qualify, in which the simple solution is too simply update rule so that it specify in a more detailed manor rather than simply completely changing the rule which would make things more complicated for no reason when the solution is a simple update to the rule rather than a complete change.

Does the Rule need to be updated? Yes. It does, because the issue has been easily resolved before and such in the past and has been handled in a way that hasn’t caused many problems.

Does the Rule need to be changed? No. Because the rule is perfectly fine and simply needs to be more detailed and specific rather than vague and open to interpretation.

The solution is simple and it has been used multiple times concerning this issue in the past and the solution that has just as much relevance now that it's beign adressed.