• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Yeet type 5 Acausality or change it again

Status
Not open for further replies.
Antvasima said:
@DontTalkDT

What do you think about this?


Click to expand...
Disagree with Tatsumi504's post. That is handing out powerful abilities for disproportionately weak evidence. Vague independence statements shouldn't be enough for an ability that makes immune to virtually everything. For something like that there should be evidence of being unable to be changed by any effect that relies on a system of causality.

I'm fine with Ultima's position, as it stands. If we don't want to rewrite due to it being a weird special case, then we should either keep the current definition or, if no relevant amount of characters qualifies, just delete Type 5.
 
Just for context. The seemingly main reason this thread was created was because the new standards 'didn't apply to anyone' which has been debunked multiple times in the thread. Is there any reason to even change the definition under this context? just because it's incredibly strict? I honestly just think that Everyman12 has evaluated the new standard unfairly in the thread where verses where evaluated under the new standards.

We could probably just keep the current definition and evaluate each verse individually again outside of a thread where one mod is applying the standards.
 
DontTalkDT said:
Disagree with Tatsumi504's post. That is handing out powerful abilities for disproportionately weak evidence.
Click to expand...
Not really as that was the point of the attached note to the old definition but OK.
DontTalkDT said:
For something like that there should be evidence of being unable to be changed by any effect that relies on a system of causality.
Click to expand...
Could've sworn I added something like that but this right here is basically the reason for the entire thread. This requirement basically denies every character on the wiki with type 5 listed in their profiles. Also, characters with AE, NEP, TD etc got denied it as well cause it looked like their invulnerability came from those abilities and not transcending causality.
Furthermore, you're basically saying you expect the author to openly state that they're invulnerable because they transcend causality. At that point, the work is basically for battle boarding purposes.

To sum it up, I'm not saying we hand it out for vague, flimsy evidence at all. The evidence can be scrutinized, especially for those that have to do with being beyond time or laws.

Edit: I'm also fine with just nuking it if it's giving this much trouble. The ability was basically the NLF of NLF's till it got restricted to its own dimensionality.
 
Tatsumi504 said:
Pretty sure everything12 nuked them even in the previous thread. Anyway, it doesn't matter as this is derailing
Click to expand...
Because the last thread was done crappily and it was clarified on this thread, but yeah this is derailing and I'll just STFU
 
The real problem is not about standard but us, what matter is how we executing those standard because in the end it is us who create the standard itself. The current definition of type 5 is fine, the problem is how Everything12 handling the standard itself as he being too strict (no offend to him of course), well i know type 5 always being considering to be a strong abilities so i can understand the mindset of being strict when evaluate it, but Everything12 being needlessly strict, that the problem in my opinion
 
Vietthai96 said:
The real problem is not about standard but us, what matter is how we executing those standard because in the end it is us who create the standard itself. The current definition of type 5 is fine, the problem is how Everything12 handling the standard itself as he being too strict (no offend to him of course), well i know type 5 always being considering to be a strong abilities so i can understand the mindset of being strict when evaluate it, but Everything12 being needlessly strict, that the problem in my opinion
Click to expand...
This is what im trying to say yeh. The standard is fine, it just doesn't seem to have been applied correctly in the thread where they where evaluated.
 
@Blackcurrant91 if the new standards are done crappily in the last thread then we need other staff to look over who qualifies because the last one was giving a lot of mixed messages.

@ActuallySpaceMan If you're proposing an open ended solution, than can you explain how you personally want the explanation to be for type 5? Like I said I'm all for any feedback, but just saying "it's ridiculous" while not giving an alternative solution in the thread isn't really helping much.
 
DontTalkDT said:
Disagree with Tatsumi504's post. That is handing out powerful abilities for disproportionately weak evidence. Vague independence statements shouldn't be enough for an ability that makes immune to virtually everything. For something like that there should be evidence of being unable to be changed by any effect that relies on a system of causality.

I'm fine with Ultima's position, as it stands. If we don't want to rewrite due to it being a weird special case, then we should either keep the current definition or, if no relevant amount of characters qualifies, just delete Type 5.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the evaluations.

We should probably apply DontTalk's and Ultima's agreed solution then.
 
Antvasima said:
Thank you for the evaluations.

We should probably apply DontTalk's and Ultima's agreed solution then.
Click to expand...
Mind pinging @Everything12 as he is a significant contributor to this thread since he is the one who evaluated the whole thread and this matter. We did not hear his opinion in this 4 pages thread at all.
 
What exactly is Ultima's and DontTalk's solution? From what I'm reading, I'm in agreement with their opinions but I would like clarity in the proposed changes.
 
Ultima_Reality said:
I think it's pretty superfluous, overall. Type 5 Acausality should be strictly focused around existing outside of the process of "X happens, and that causes Y." Whether or not the character in question is incorporeal has no relation to this definition. It's a complete non-sequitur and shouldn't be made into a requirement, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
DontTalkDT said:
Disagree with Tatsumi504's post. That is handing out powerful abilities for disproportionately weak evidence. Vague independence statements shouldn't be enough for an ability that makes immune to virtually everything. For something like that there should be evidence of being unable to be changed by any effect that relies on a system of causality.

I'm fine with Ultima's position, as it stands. If we don't want to rewrite due to it being a weird special case, then we should either keep the current definition or, if no relevant amount of characters qualifies, just delete Type 5.
Click to expand...
See here.

Others will have to clarify further than that.
 
Can somebody list the other staff members who have commented in this thread please?
 
While true acausality being unbounded completely and independently by cause and effect in the philosophical sense is impossible to prove, lesser forms of the idea appear often in fiction.
Click to expand...
I am still requesting this to be added
 
I shared similar thoughts with Ultima. Though, if even characters from Elder Scrolls and Outer Gods can't qualify for Acausality type 5, I think the type should be deleted; from what I recall, it was decided in the past thread they weren't qualified for it.
 
Elizhaa said:
I shared similar thoughts with Ultima. Though, if even characters from Elder Scrolls and Outer Gods can't qualify for Acausality type 5, I think the type should be deleted; from what I recall, it was decided in the past thread they weren't qualified for it.
Click to expand...
Because they had no real supporters for the ****** billionth time
 
Elizhaa said:
I shared similar thoughts with Ultima. Though, if even characters from Elder Scrolls and Outer Gods can't qualify for Acausality type 5, I think the type should be deleted; from what I recall, it was decided in the past thread they weren't qualified for it.
Click to expand...
It wasn't, we never got around to more then deciding that the current justification on their profiles were barebones and obviously needed knowledgeable members to add context at most for such characters. As we were busy with evaluating others.
 
Dread said:
Alright, so if there are no characters to qualify for this, the nature can be deleted.
Click to expand...
Rushing already? Warhammer still qualifies if only for a possibly, Ultima has put forward reasons for TES and Cthulhu Mythos qualifying which haven't been properly debunked or anything, so that's 3 verses already and just one is enough to keep it
 
Ultima_Reality said:
Personally, I'd say what counts as an anti-feat for Acausality Type 5 would largely be restricted to occasions where the alleged acausal character is interacted with by normal people, or more generally beings that have absolutely no precedent for being able to do that; in these cases, I'd be fine with just giving them resistance to Causality Manipulation, by virtue of those statements having demonstrable proof of not being fully literal, or at least, not literal enough to be taken to their logical conclusion. Pretty much what Agnaa said up there.

I don't think characters being shown to act at all would necessarily count as an anti-feat, though, particularly if those scenarios strictly involve the Acausal character in question and other entities participating in the same state of existence as them. Depending on the case, I believe it'd be fine to treat these occasions as narrative concessions, since art certainly has its limits and can't exactly depict a lot of other things as is. As an extension of this point, I'd like to rise the question of: Why exactly do we refuse to give Type 5 even if the character in question has no anti-feats to speak of? Is it because of concerns regarding what "Beyond cause and effect" would mean?

Nevertheless, to help with the "No characters qualify for this!" issue, I think a few characters do still qualify anyway. For instance, you got the The Ultimate Gods, who exist on a level in which time and change are illusions. Indeed, that there appears to be change at all is just a trick of the mind caused by dimensioned beings experiencing different viewpoints of the same whole, which nonetheless remains unchanged (All of that is a product of local perspectives, which the Ultimate Gods are beyond):



As for the Elder Scrolls characters, I'd say they qualify as well, yes. TES in general places a lot of focus on how the Gods are completely beyond linear time and on a level where everything happens simultaneously, and as such their lives can't really support most of the qualities of a narrative to begin with. They're explicitly above cause, consequence and duration (All those being "trappings" that they willingly adopt to interact with mortals), and the whole idea of "if-then," and are creatures of "the Ever-Now."

In fact, as a direct consequence of them lacking the concept of duration, it's stated that, although from a limited perspective, godly states of being may "eventually" snap back into normal, temporal states, that's not actually the case, and eventuality as a whole is rendered moot; it seems like it ended, but it's actually occuring eternally outside of time. And this is actually practically demonstrated in verse, too:

www.imperial-library.info

Nu-Mantia Intercept — The Imperial Library

Letters exchanged betwee Nu-Hatta and members of the Elder Countil, warning of an ancient threat and outlining the lore of Creation and the Towers
www.imperial-library.info www.imperial-library.info



Basically, at the dawn of existence, the Gods had a convention outside of time, where they decided what the laws of the mortal plane would be. And since that meeting happened in a timeless state of being, it's "static," and even though to mortals, it seems like the Gods have long since finished it, they're actually still in there, constantly bringing the laws of reality into being through their discussion.

And then of course, you have the two highest entities being the primordial concepts of Stasis and Change, beyond even the above, and a supreme being who transcends both of them.

So, yeah, I think the idea that no one actually qualifies for Type 5 is kind of wack, even under stricter standards.
Click to expand...
Here, and Ultima also explains the why and the how of the new system below this post, and outside of Dread taking issues because of the last thread having Everything12 enforce a standard that wasn't stated which Ultima also already disagreed with the judgement on just a post or a few before
 
DaReaperMan said:
Rushing already? Warhammer still qualifies if only for a possibly, Ultima has put forward reasons for TES and Cthulhu Mythos qualifying which haven't been properly debunked or anything, so that's 3 verses already and just one is enough to keep it
Click to expand...
4 pages, and you say I am rushing, oh mb + 1 month and some weeks as well.
 
DaReaperMan said:
The instant the possibility is there again you jump on deletion, if that isn't rushing then I dunno what is
Click to expand...
The suggestion of deletion was also promoted by many staff members if there are no characters who can get it qualified.
This is not rushing, in fact it was a suggestion since the page 1, rather since the creation of the thread.

Also, the Ultima suggestion or words on those verses who may qualify, still don't have any there no interaction statement there, rather it is more “beyond causality in details”. DaReaperMan, lets not derail this thread, rather we can find a solution in your wall or mines lol-
 
Dread said:
The suggestion of deletion was also promoted by many staff members if there are no characters who can get it qualified.
This is not rushing, in fact it was a suggestion since the page 1, rather since the creation of the thread.

Also, the Ultima suggestion or words on those verses who may qualify, still don't have any there no interaction statement there, rather it is more “beyond causality in details”. DaReaperMan, lets not derail this thread, rather we can find a solution in your wall or mines lol-
Click to expand...
IF no character qualifies, whoops, characters qualify. You are so hyperfocused on the last thread you forgot that Ultima explicitly noted that isn't how Acausality 5 is worded right now, as Ultima has already said and backed up with the definition of Acausality 5 as it is right now, an interaction statement isn't needed.

Not walls, DMs. If you really want to get to the core of why I'm... unhappy with you, then make one. I'd rather not, but if you want to find out, do it.
 
DaReaperMan said:
IF no character qualifies, whoops, characters qualify. You are so hyperfocused on the last thread you forgot that Ultima explicitly noted that isn't how Acausality 5 is worded right now, as Ultima has already said and backed up with the definition of Acausality 5 as it is right now, an interaction statement isn't needed.

Not walls, DMs. If you really want to get to the core of why I'm... unhappy with you, then make one. I'd rather not, but if you want to find out, do it.
Click to expand...
Wait, wait, an interaction statement is not needed? Ayo, lets go! We solved the problem bois!
If it is not needed, we can close the ticket and re-do the evaluation, I know many many plenty characters then.
 
Ultima_Reality said:
It offers proof that they are unable to undergo change enacted by/under systems of causality, which is what the page requires, as I've shown up there. I think you and other people are way too hung up on the "unable to be interacted with" bit of the description, without realizing that the page itself treats "Unable to be interacted with" as being just a practical consequence of "unable to be changed by any effect that relies on a system of causality."
Click to expand...
Ultima_Reality said:
This is the current description on the page:



Both of the cases I've mentioned qualify for the bolded criterion, which from the looks of it, is the primary phrasing given in the page (With "uninteractable" seemed like it's more something laying out the practical side of it). If Everything somehow thinks even those cases don't qualify, then I disagree with his judgement, seeing as it's be clearly contradicted by the written standards themselves.
Click to expand...
Ultima_Reality said:
I don't see how this note relates to the topic at hand, or the examples I've given. All it boils down to is "Time and causality aren't necessarily linked, and as such transcending the former does not mean transcendence over the latter."


As said, if even those cases (And those similar to them) were rejected by Everything, then I disagree with his judgement on the matter, as it contradicts the criterion laid out on the Acausality page itself. By extension, I wouldn't mind giving my own look at the proposed characters, regardless.
Click to expand...
Pretty much every post Ultima made hammered that in. An interaction statement ain't needed, but it can be the extra proof required, and even if an interaction statement was needed, Warhammer would still qualify as a possibly
 
DaReaperMan said:
Pretty much every post Ultima made hammered that in. An interaction statement ain't needed, but it can be the extra proof required, and even if an interaction statement was needed, Warhammer would still qualify as a possibly
Click to expand...
If it is not needed, we solved the issue honestly, the evaluation can be redone tho.
Is there anything to discuss?
 
DaReaperMan said:
Disagreeing isn't a bad thing, it just means more discussion is needed, and, once again, Warhammer still qualifies as a possibly under the strictest standard.
Click to expand...
Still a possibly, only 1 verse so i don't see the problem with deleting it.

Its been over a month since this issue started and the discussion has gone full circle. No matter what solution has been provided, at least one person ends up disagreeing with it including staff.
Rather than let this continue it's best to settle for its removal, don't think anyone was heavily against yeeting it.
 
Tatsumi504 said:
Still a possibly, only 1 verse so i don't see the problem with deleting it.

Its been over a month since this issue started and the discussion has gone full circle. No matter what solution has been provided, at least one person ends up disagreeing with it including staff.
Rather than let this continue it's best to settle for its removal, don't think anyone was heavily against yeeting it.
Click to expand...
One verse got transduality 1 to stay, this is no different, it's even more characters!

Literally doesn't matter, they can then discuss and debate straight up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Quasar002
Acausality question
Replies
3
Views
665
GreatIskandar14045
GreatIskandar14045
Bobsican
  • Locked
Type 4 Acausality: Too Much for Too Little
2
Replies
71
Views
9K
Planck69
Planck69
RaveeCPN
  • Locked
Some Rewordings About Type 5 Acausality
3 4 5
Replies
178
Views
9K
Antvasima
Antvasima
CNBA3
Higher Causal System?
Replies
12
Views
1K
CNBA3
CNBA3
Caleb1775
Adding more examples for Acausality, Small Size, and Large Size
Replies
0
Views
180
Caleb1775
Caleb1775
Back
Top