Talk:Mythbusters/Speculations

Luffy's bounty increase
This topic has caused such an uproar, it merits a spot on this page. If not under speculation, would you agree that may be more sufficient under the rumors tab? --Kingluffy1 18:20, October 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * It is neither speculation or a rumor; it is, at best, suspect information, and even that is a stretch. Compare:
 * Myth: Luffy's bounty was increased to 400,000,000 during the timeskip, the Fake Luffy specifically mentioned it.
 * to
 * Myth: Dragon appeared in Loguetown and Luffy was able to hear the dragon talking in the Apis Arc. The D must mean DRAGON.
 * Note the difference between the first and second. The second is utter randomness, the first is an actual fact being claimed as a myth, which is just absurd. The simple truth is this: barring a statement to the contrary, there is no reason to assume that Fake Luffy, whose express intention is to imitate the real one, would lie about a fact that could be easily checked by anyone. It would damage his credibility. Fake Nami got hers right, so why suspect Fake Luffy? Of further note is the fact that no one, at least that I can recall, has ever lied about their bounty. Bellamy thought Luffy was lying, but he was just an asshole. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 18:29, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying Luffy's bounty didn't increase. While it is likely Fake Luffy is telling the truth, it should be taken with a grain of salt. I made note of it on the speculation page becuase of the DISPUTES it has been causing. Even if the bounty is confirmed, that part of the page would remain because of the disputes it caused. It will be noted in the Fact: portion whether the Myth: is true or not (ignoring the paradox that if a myth is actually true, it's no longer a myth), when it is either confirmed or denied. The same situation arose when Kaidou was first mentioned; I immediately assumed he was a yonkou, which eventually was noted on the speculation page. Even after it was confirmed that he is in fact a yonkou, it remained noted but was revised to say it was confirmed specultion (atleast the last time I checked it was). Revise the wording I used for if you want, but I stand by my argument that it should remain noted on the mythbusters page. Honestly though, the best course of action would probably be to get an admins opinion on the subject. --Kingluffy1 18:55, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

I see your new edit (it took some time to write out that last comment, lol). I'd say that's an acceptable compromise; different wording, but gets the point I was going for across. --Kingluffy1 19:00, October 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. My main issue is that trying to call the claim itself speculation is wrong; it's obviously true, since it's in black and white. The dispute itself is the speculation, which I made clear over on Rumors. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:07, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

No harm done or meant. That was why I added it; I guess I put it as speculation first because of all the debates I've seen. --Kingluffy1 19:14, October 8, 2010 (UTC)