Adding note for Acausality type 5

[QuasiYuri]

Type 1 and 2 concepts were merged with the revision. That's just what happened. You'd have to have never read both the actual page itself or the thread that revised it to believe otherwise.

I litteraly am the guy who proposed the changes and made the current CM page justifications (except for once sentence in type 3). So I can guarantee it wasn't just merging.

Kinda hard to not read what one's writing. So I think there's only one of us who can be wrong there.

Also, acausality type 5 is very much a thing in fiction. Ever heard of Destiny, TES, the Cthulhu Mythos, or any number of other verses? Type 4 is just not a good explanation for the sheer degree of acausality present in these characters, plain and simple.

It really isn't tho. What gives one type 5 instead of 4 is just arbitrary.

As for the OP. the idea is that the concepts themselves, type 1 or old type 2 for clarification, are acausal, being "outside" and "above" the forms of such things we experience due to their nature.

That was the old type 1/2. Any independent concept fits, and they don't have to be platonic, transcendent, or anything.

 

[Everything12]

It really isn't tho. What gives one type 5 instead of 4 is just arbitrary.

It's not really arbitrary, it's that you have to show feats the prove you have the qualities necessary to meet Type 5; being immune to change because you are outside Cause and Effect. Aka, the sole and most important difference between Types 4 and 5.

Meanwhile, Type 4 has statements and feats of having irregular or being outside Causality, but not showing feats necessary for Type 5.


Edit: Also, you might have proposed the new changes, but when I agreed to the changes that was not what I and several other people I know agreed to. We only agreed to combining the two because the 1-A requirements for Type 1 were redundant.

 

[QuasiYuri]

It's not really arbitrary, it's that you have to show feats the prove you have the qualities necessary to meet Type 5; being immune to change because you are outside Cause and Effect. Aka, the sole and most important difference between Types 4 and 5.

The characters currently having type 5 either are just call immutable, have no justification in the P&A section, or just have being unbound in comparison to type 4s.

Meanwhile, type 5 only requirement is "transcend the normal boundaries of cause and effect, existing outside of the causality of a system" which is basically the "outside causality" you said was for type 4; for instance.

So type 5 really is bad, because it has such a weak justification that it has no true criterias.

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

I litteraly am the guy who proposed the changes and made the current CM page justifications (except for once sentence in type 3). So I can guarantee it wasn't just merging.

Kinda hard to not read what one's writing. So I think there's only one of us who can be wrong there.

not entirely sure what to tell you, but that's what everyone was saying.

It really isn't tho. What gives one type 5 instead of 4 is just arbitrary.

No, it isn't. You frankly have no idea what you're talking about. Type 4 is about working with an irregular or otherwise different form of causality, while type 5 is transcending causality outright, being above cause and effect and having such things not matter to you.

 

[Everything12]

Well I can't say your completely wrong that some P&A sections are lackluster and that some characters probably don't deserve it, but thats not a problem of the Type having no justification, it's problem with users not understanding it or exaggerating feats to gain a strong power, and poor profile creation. Neither of which is a problem with the Type but of the users.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Imo, Type 5 needs reworded it sounds far to similar to type 4. I once made a thread about this

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

Imo, Type 5 needs reworded it sounds far to similar to type 4. I once made a thread about this

except it doesn't? Like, type 4 is very clearly still being subject to causality, just not the same causality that we consider normal, while type 5 isn't being subject to it at all.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

except it doesn't? Like, type 4 is very clearly still being subject to causality, just not the same causality that we consider normal, while type 5 isn't being subject to it at all.

I'll elaborate my thoughts once I'm home and in a good spot.

 

[QuasiYuri]

not entirely sure what to tell you, but that's what everyone was saying.

Well, the majority didn't participate in the thread, and it's not rare that a lot of dudes don't understand what has been changed.

I mean, the number of people understanding higher tiers isn't that big for example.

No, it isn't. You frankly have no idea what you're talking about. Type 4 is about working with an irregular or otherwise different form of causality, while type 5 is transcending causality outright, being above cause and effect and having such things not matter to you.

You really need to stop the "you have no idea what you're talking about talk". Already lost any impact when you used it for CM.

It is a vague "transcend the normal boundaries of cause and effect, existing outside of the causality of a system", which most type 4 do already

 

[QuasiYuri]

Well I can't say your completely wrong that some P&A sections are lackluster and that some characters probably don't deserve it, but thats not a problem of the Type having no justification, it's problem with users not understanding it or exaggerating feats to gain a strong power, and poor profile creation. Neither of which is a problem with the Type but of the users.

I was taking the two issues separately though.

On one side, you have bad P&A for the reasons you said.

On the other, you have this awfully vague and bad justification which most type 4 would easily qualify for.

 

[Oblivion_Of_The_Endless]

On the topic of acausal type 5 being considered "invulnerable" to most harm, Type 4 should be treated in the same way (not in the same level, but still invulnerable). Even being outside the already conventional system of cause and effect would already give you invulnerability over conventional attacks that have cause. If someone is able to touch a dude who has Type 4, either its a feat for them or the type 4 dude just isn't acausal, there should be no in-between. Its not much different from when characters interact with Type 5s with people not batting an eye on it.

"But acausality type 4 is for beings who have the statements but no showings of it being invulnerable"

Thats contradictory, since as I said, being outside causality (even if not all systems of it) would give you immutability over conventional attacks. We are kind of arbitrarily making Type 4 into something that doesn't make sense considering the description of it.

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

Well, the majority didn't participate in the thread, and it's not rare that a lot of dudes don't understand what has been changed.

I mean, the number of people understanding higher tiers isn't that big for example.

except concept manip has nothing to do with high tiers in the vast majority of verses? And even then this entire response just doesn't make any sense at all.

You really need to stop the "you have no idea what you're talking about talk". Already lost any impact when you used it for CM.

It is a vague "transcend the normal boundaries of cause and effect, existing outside of the causality of a system", which most type 4 do already

No, it doesn't. Don't you try to tone argument me, it just makes you look incredibly unreasonable. But either way, it seems you are intentionally avoiding actually responding to me in a proper fashion, so eh.

No, they don't. I don't know what type 4 you're talking about but it's not what we use. Even if you were, in some alternate timeline, correct, that's an issue with the people applying the types to pages, not the types themselves. Literally nothing you have said applies and even if it magically did somehow it wouldn't make you correct.

 

[Everything12]

On the topic of acausal type 5 being considered "invulnerable" to most harm, Type 4 should be treated in the same way (not in the same level, but still invulnerable). Even being outside the already conventional system of cause and effect would already give you invulnerability over conventional attacks that have cause. If someone is able to touch a dude who has Type 4, either its a feat for them or the type 4 dude just isn't acausal, there should be no in-between. Its not much different from when characters interact with Type 5s with people not batting an eye on it.

"But acausality type 4 is for beings who have the statements but no showings of it being invulnerable"

Thats contradictory, since as I said, being outside causality (even if not all systems of it) would give you immutability over conventional attacks. We are kind of arbitrarily making Type 4 into something that doesn't make sense considering the description of it.

Except this is entirely wrong, and having a irregular Causality System will not make you immune to change, you are still Effected by Causes. You just react to Fate and Causality Manipulation differently, or to put it in a Doyle prospective.

The reason we have Types 4 and 5 is because logically being outside Causality makes you immune to change, however some (not all) writers don't understand that and just make them immune to Fate changes and such. They give a description without the sufficient feats, and for us to assign this powerful ability which they (not everyone) has no feats for would go against the accuracy the Wiki strives for as a indexing site. Though to ignore the multitude (aka not small amount) of verses that do have the required feats to fit the statement giving would also harm our accuracy, so we create two Types as is necessary.

 

[Oblivion_Of_The_Endless]

If you really want to go through that route, then the description should be changed, since it does match the way we currently treat it. Either that or create a new type of acausality (unlikely).

"Characters that are partially outside the causality of a system" for example.

 

[QuasiYuri]

except concept manip has nothing to do with high tiers in the vast majority of verses? And even then this entire response just doesn't make any sense at all.

How does it not make sense? People not understanding what has changed is the only thing there.

No, it doesn't. Don't you try to tone argument me, it just makes you look incredibly unreasonable. But either way, it seems you are intentionally avoiding actually responding to me in a proper fashion, so eh.

I litteraly answered it. You deciding it is wrong without reasonning isn't how it works.

Also I swear this kind of attitude is rubbing me the wrong way pretty quickly.
If you think that someone telling you that calling everyone an ignorant and coe doesn't help is them being unreasonnable, then they aren't the problem.

No, they don't. I don't know what type 4 you're talking about but it's not what we use. Even if you were, in some alternate timeline, correct, that's an issue with the people applying the types to pages, not the types themselves. Literally nothing you have said applies and even if it magically did somehow it wouldn't make you correct.

...
You litteraly say I don't answer you properly, then you proceed to just say "lol maybe right in another timeline but u wrong" with litteraly no argument ?

The justification I used to show you is litteraly the one we use for type 5.

Type 4 are outside regular causality, aren't they?
They transcend the causality of a limited system, don't they?

Yet those are the only requirement of type 5.

 

[Regidian]

Just to know what is considered a feat to be type 5 except the " i transcend the concept of causality" direct statement?

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

These are the current Acasuality definitions on the wiki for type 4 and 5

Type 4: Irregular Causality:

Characters with this type of Acausality operate on a different and irregular system of cause and effect than regular causality. This grants them resistance to abilities such as Causality Manipulation, Fate Manipulation, and Precognition, among others.

• Examples: Riven of a Thousand Voices (Destiny), Lord Drakkon (Power Rangers)

Type 5: Causality Transcendence: Characters with this type of Acausality transcend the normal boundaries of cause and effect, existing outside of the causality of a system. Even interacting with them normally may prove virtually impossible.

• Examples: Outer Gods (Cthulhu Mythos), Daedric Princes (The Elder Scrolls)

I underlined and bolded the parts that would confuse a new wiki member. These literally mean the same thing their just worded differently. So i can understand why a new user would get confused

Type 5 Should be changed to "Transcends all cause and effects systems, existing outside the entire concept of causal systems." Because the current definition implies the something as type 4 just in different words.

 

[Regidian]

These are the current Acasuality definitions on the wiki




I underlined and bolded the parts that would confuse a new wiki member. These literally mean the same thing their just worded differently. So i can understand why a new user would get confused

Type 5 Should be changed to "Transcends all cause and effects systems, existing outside the entire concept of causal systems." Because the current definition implies the something as type 4 just in different words.

[/QUOTE]
And how do we do if a guy is existing in a higher concept of causality who transcend the normal one?

The normal can't affect him but it's still bound by a higher concept of causality. Would it be 4 and 5?

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

How does it not make sense? People not understanding what has changed is the only thing there.

because it's very clear that people have noticed the change? Like that's what this entire thread is about, is it not?

I litteraly answered it. You deciding it is wrong without reasonning isn't how it works.

I fail to see any actual response from you on this topic just at all. I might just be blind but I've looked back through this entire conversation.

Also I swear this kind of attitude is rubbing me the wrong way pretty quickly.
If you think that someone telling you that calling everyone an ignorant and coe doesn't help is them being unreasonnable, then they aren't the problem.

You're really quick to the draw on the character judgements eh?
"Ignorant" is the most polite way to describe someone who was all but admitted to not reading basically anything posted to a thread that they made, and then making statements on what was said in that thread. It is either this or you are outright lying to me, and I would prefer it to not be that.
There is nothing else to say on this matter.

...
You litteraly say I don't answer you properly, then you proceed to just say "lol maybe right in another timeline but u wrong" with litteraly no argument ?

The justification I used to show you is litteraly the one we use for type 5.

Type 4 are outside regular causality, aren't they?
They transcend the causality of a limited system, don't they?

Yet those are the only requirement of type 5.

That was on a completely different different topic, and I specified that you didn't answer me properly on that topic. This isn't some kind of subtext, it's literally what I said, plainly.

Wow those are some leading questions. Being outside of something does not, in any god damn way, mean that you inherently transcend it. You can be outside of a universe but that doesn't mean a damn thing tier-wise, and it especially doesn't mean that you transcend it because that's just stupid.

Type 4 and 5 are only similar if you are intentionally misreading what the acausality page says. It specifies their differences, they are treated as different things by everyone involved, and they are different conceptually. They are just different, there is no possible way to say otherwise in good faith.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

And how do we do if a guy is existing in a higher concept of causality who transcend the normal one?



The normal can't affect him but it's still bound by a higher concept of causality. Would it be 4 and 5?

From my understanding that is type 4, because they would still be in the concept of causality. They are not transcending the concept of causality in its entirety just transcendence over a singular part of it.

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

These are the current Acasuality definitions on the wiki for type 4 and 5




I underlined and bolded the parts that would confuse a new wiki member. These literally mean the same thing their just worded differently. So i can understand why a new user would get confused

Type 5 Should be changed to "Transcends all cause and effects systems, existing outside the entire concept of causal systems." Because the current definition implies the something as type 4 just in different words.

No, they do not. Being outside of something does not mean transcending this. I do not need to spend special effort proving this because it's literally two completely and utterly unrelated words. This is just an objective statement of fact.

 

[Regidian]

From my understanding that is type 4, because they would still be in the concept of causality. They are not transcending the concept of causality in its entirety just transcendence over a singular part of it.

But why it would be only 4? The normal can't affect them

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

No, they do not. Being outside of something does not mean transcending this. I do not need to spend special effort proving this because it's literally two completely and utterly unrelated words. This is just an objective statement of fact.

Okay.. I just quoted the current definition because it uses the word "existing outside." ..

But my point still stands that Type 5 could use a better descriptions.

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

Okay.. I just quoted the current definition because it uses the word "existing outside." ..

But my point still stands that Type 5 could use a better descriptions.

This is reasonable. I can fully understand some people having issues with the definition because of how people can abuse technicalities, which happens a good bit.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

But why it would be only 4? The normal can't affect them

Because he only transcends 1 aspect of Causality instead of the entire concept of casuality or ALL Systems of Causality Unless the verse caps out at 2 systems the normal Casual and the higher causal system above that. Then i suppose you could make an argument for Type 5 if there isn't any anti-feats. Though im not expert on this lol.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

This is reasonable. I can fully understand some people having issues with the definition because of how people can abuse technicalities, which happens a good bit.

Yeah thats basically what im advocating for a better definition of it.

 

[Delta333]

bump and what should we do here

 

[Delta333]

Bump and if concept type 1 is acausal (or can affect acausal type 5) then why many AEs type 1 based on concept type 1 don't have acausal type 5?

 

[GreatIskandar14045]

bump and what should we do here

Definitely rewording the acausality page based on what I followed.

Bump and if concept type 1 is acausal (or can affect acausal type 5) then why many AEs type 1 based on concept type 1 don't have acausal type 5?

Type 1 concepts aren't type 5 acausal anymore they are... like type 4.

They aren't freed from all levels of reality (or on conceptual level if you want to say), they are just independent to conventional levels of reality unlike good ol' days Platonic concepts which are unrestricted to dimensions, causality, laws... everything. I can't even see a guy with CM2 resistance and type 2/4 acausality wouldn't resist CM1 on this case.

 

[Delta333]

Type 1 concepts aren't type 5 acausal anymore they are... like type 4.

But even then many AEs type 1 based on type 1 concept still don't have acausal type 4 on profile at all

 

[GreatIskandar14045]

But even then many AEs type 1 based on type 1 concept still don't have acausal type 4 on profile at all

They don't really need it though, it's like how you don't really have to put Incorporeality before Abstract Existence

 

[Antvasima]

@QuasiYuri @Everything12

Can you or some other experienced member summarise the discussion above please? Should we expand a bit on the definition text in the acausality page or not?

Also, should I ask other staff members for further input here?

 

[Everything12]

This Thread has gone wildly off topic and as we have been more arguing what the recent changes to Type 2 and Type 1 Concept Manipulation actually entailed.

Yuri states that it made it so that Type 1 Concepts aren't Transcendent over reality and simply exst outside Time, I'm stating that everyone only agreed to fusing the two Types, because the Types 1 are Type 2 but 1-A was redundant, and no actually changes to their nature's.

 

[Delta333]

Also, should I ask other staff members for further input here?

I think you should ask other staff members,Everything12 and Yuri seems to be contradicted to each other

 

[QuasiYuri]

This Thread has gone wildly off topic and as we have been more arguing what the recent changes to Type 2 and Type 1 Concept Manipulation actually entailed.

Yuri states that it made it so that Type 1 Concepts aren't Transcendent over reality and simply exst outside Time, I'm stating that everyone only agreed to fusing the two Types, because the Types 1 are Type 2 but 1-A was redundant, and no actually changes to their nature's.

You can reread the two thread if you want, but it has been discussed for like two pages that their nature was changed, which was accepted. My sandbox is the one used in the OP of the second one too.
If anything, it would show a lack of seriousness from some of those who were involved.

Also they simply are independent, you don't even need to be outside technically speaking.

 

[Antvasima]

This Thread has gone wildly off topic and as we have been more arguing what the recent changes to Type 2 and Type 1 Concept Manipulation actually entailed.

Yuri states that it made it so that Type 1 Concepts aren't Transcendent over reality and simply exst outside Time, I'm stating that everyone only agreed to fusing the two Types, because the Types 1 are Type 2 but 1-A was redundant, and no actually changes to their nature's.

Okay. So can we turn the current mess into something constructive then, and if so, should I call for any more staff members, or should we close this thread instead?

 

[QuasiYuri]

Okay. So can we turn the current mess into something constructive then, and if so, should I call for any more staff members, or should we close this thread instead?

I think it's not too hard to explain to begin with. It was agreed by several members including you and DDM.
It's not even an actual debate to begin with, just facts about what our current CM page is.

People are just using the outdated discussion from 2020 (or 2019?) when it was agreed that type 1>Acausality type 5; but it was like at least one year ago and before the current changes.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. So what should we do here then?

 

[QuasiYuri]

Besides giving explanations, there's no much to do.

It's really just reminding users that since type 1/2 changed, the old discussion on the old version obviously don't apply and explaining that the new CM just doesn't involve transcendence nor being outside stuff; just independence. Which is something which is best done individually, just like any Q&A threads or reminder.

If someone wants this thread closed, I don't mind having it closed; but if anyone have questions regarding CM, I'll gladly answer them.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, so no expanded text needs to be written in our explanation page then?