About Leading Questions.

[SweetDao]

So. I want a final answer because I'm honestly confused as f*** right now. I would like an exact definition of "Leading Question" and when it is one or isn't.
I'll propose some situations and want to understand when it will be one (and therefore unusable for scaling) or when it would be allowed:

1 : A random individual asks a lore question (unrelated to powerscaling, but perhaps usable for it) in the comments of a story. The author answers.
Ex : "Are Character A and Characters B using the same type of magic?"

2 : A powerscaler asks a lore question (unrelated to powerscaling, but perhaps usable for it) in the comments of a story. The author answers.
Ex : "Are Character A and Character B using the same type of magic?"

(Does the means the person is asking important? For example, would the same question-answer happening on Twitter be problematic or would it be fine either way?)

3 : A random individual asks a precise question (unrelated to powerscaling, but definitely usable for it). The author answers.
Ex : "Is character A the embodiment of the void?"

4 : A powerscaler asks a precise question (related to powerscaling defacto). The Author answers.
Ex : "Is character A the embodiment of the void?"

I could go on and on, but yeah, I want to understand exactly what's the "line" on when it's usable or not. Of course, if it's just "it can't be used no matter who asked it, what was asked and how it was asked" then I'm fine with it, but I want a definite answer.

 

[Rikimarox2]

Not that knowledgeable, but imo, it just really depends on the question itself, rather than the person asking it. Bare with me as I don't really know how to explain it properly but I'll try.

For 1, and 2, regardless if a powerscaler asked the question or not, this is a normal question, and is not really a leading question. I believe both are fine, as they provide more information about the magic the verse uses. It isn't something like "is the magic in the verse higher-dimensional" when the verse has no mentions of higher-dimensions or are extremely vague and open to interpretation. A case that wouldn't work is when a powerscaler asked the author of GoW shit like "Is Kratos outerversal, ie destroys 0D, 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D, etc...?"
That kind of stuff is obviously made for powerscaling purposes.

For 3 and 4, it depends on the context of the story itself, ie if there are hints for stuff like that, such as the character being described as nothingness, having the powers of the void, being called the void, or whatever. The question itself, even if asked by a powerscaler, isn't really powerscale-ish, and since it could be asked by normal readers/viewers to give more clarificaction about how the verse works, I think they are both fine.

Basically, don't ask leading questions, or very powerscaley question (ie "Is character A outerversal" or "Can character A destroy X dimensions?"), and as long as they are questions that can be asked by normal readers, and reasonable clues exist in the verse for the question to be asked, I think they are all fine, regardless if a powerscaler asked the question.

That's my two cents on this. Just look at the context, and I think you can tell if the question can be used or not.

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

I would say it does not matter which type of person asks powerscaling or not, as long as what they're asking is already in the verse, their stuff that supports it, and there are feats that prove it. Like DKD Computer Gods, for example—on stuff on about how they can think of universes with infinite Cardinalities —that is how High 1B+ became possible on them. The result would be the same whether a powerscaling or non-powerscaling person asked about stuff that is proven in the verse or stuff that isn’t even proven in the verse.

 

[Reiner04]

Leading questions do not necessarily have to be related with power scaling. It's any question that's framed in a way that pushes the person answering toward a specific conclusion. It often includes assumptions that the person must accept just to respond. Complex Question Fallacy;

"Question X is asked that requires implied claim Y to be accepted before question X can be answered."

Such questions should not be entertained imo unless there is some other reason to accept it, but generally, should not.

For the examples u gave, ig our rules directly address them;

Author statements will only be accepted when they clarify what has been shown or implied in the series itself, and will be rejected when they contradict what has been shown to the audience. Statements that technically do not contradict anything shown in the series will still be rejected if there is no evidence that they are accurate.

 

[SweetDao]

"Question X is asked that requires implied claim Y to be accepted before question X can be answered."

Such questions should not be entertained imo unless there is some other reason to accept it, but generally, should not.

This is interesting. But I'm still unsure.

What if you phrase a question like this : "It has been shown that character X always wins his fights very easily, does that mean that he could beat character Y easily too even if they never fought for now?"

Would that be a leading question, since you're using a postulate as the core element of your question, or would it be fine to use since it "only" gives further information regarding a specific character?

 

[Reiner04]

What if you phrase a question like this : "It has been shown that character X always wins his fights very easily, does that mean that he could beat character Y easily too even if they never fought for now?"

It depends. If the verse has clear implications, like character X being consistently regarded as the strongest in the verse and his powers shown to be unrivaled, then it would be fine. But if the story intentionally keeps it vague and there are hints that X might not be the strongest, then it wouldn’t be applicable in my opinion.

 

[SweetDao]

It depends. If the verse has clear implications, like character X being consistently regarded as the strongest in the verse and his powers shown to be unrivaled, then it would be fine. But if the story intentionally keeps it vague and there are hints that X might not be the strongest, then it wouldn’t be applicable in my opinion.

So if I understand correctly, as long as is it somewhat substantiated in the raw material and the question is more about "details/confirmation", it should be mostly fine? (Not including PWS stuff like "Is character X transcending cardinality" or stupid stuff like that, obviously.)

 

[Rikimarox2]

This is interesting. But I'm still unsure.

What if you phrase a question like this : "It has been shown that character X always wins his fights very easily, does that mean that he could beat character Y easily too even if they never fought for now?"

Would that be a leading question, since you're using a postulate as the core element of your question, or would it be fine to use since it "only" gives further information regarding a specific character?

Imho, questions like these are frequently asked even by non-powerscalers if the series is a shounen/battle-fantasy or whatever. I don't think simple questions like "Can X beat Y" in a series about fighting should be disqualified, as I imagine many readers/viewers would want to know. I think it just provides more clarification, and besides, based on what I've seen at least, majority of authors do not give a definitive answer, as they might make the characters fight in the future.

 

[Reiner04]

So if I understand correctly, as long as is it somewhat substantiated in the raw material and the question is more about "details/confirmation", it should be mostly fine? (Not including PWS stuff like "Is character X transcending cardinality" or stupid stuff like that, obviously.)

Yeah.

 

[SweetDao]

I've seen at least, majority of authors do not give a definitive answer, as they might make the characters fight in the future.

Yeah, obviously any sane author wouldn't answer directly, but I took that example since it's the most straightforward one (would definitely be used on a profile and such)

 

[Chariot190]

Honestly the more vague the question, the better, as that forces the person answering the question to actually think about it and then answer based on their own verdict.

"How fast is Character B?".
There's no foundation, no implication of how fast they SHOULD be, if the author goes "uhm mach 100", that conclusion was reached based solely on their own intent and knowledge.

"Is character B mach 100?"
Plants a seed, it skews the results a bit because the person is now like "well damn, are they mach 100?" and begins thinking with that in mind. Like it could be fine depending on the context, but it's a bit sus when it starts pushing a conclusion in the question itself.

And shit like "Character B could do this, that, and whatever, so they're mach 100?"
Is basically giving the answer in the question itself and trying to get a "wog" confirmation out of it.

Like it isn't hard to spot when shit is just actual asking, or brainrot vs slop. Kind of just a "use your head" type of thing.

 

[SweetDao]

Like it isn't hard to spot when shit is just actual asking, or brainrot vs slop. Kind of just a "use your head" type of thing.

Obviously, your first and last examples are self-explanatory, but it's more the line of "what would be acceptable" regarding the second example that I feel can be somewhat ambiguous. Personally, asking directly about a rating would be a no go, no matter what (and I'm sure that the story would make scaling possible one way or another regardless).

 

[Vesxpura]

"Is character B mach 100?"
Plants a seed, it skews the results a bit because the person is now like "well damn, are they mach 100?" and begins thinking with that in mind. Like it could be fine depending on the context, but it's a bit sus when it starts pushing a conclusion in the question itself.

Would Adding Context and Questionability Change the interpretation?
For example
"Does Character B really move at Mach 100? Since there was implications in your works" or something of the sort relating to "your work"

Or Is it the terms used?
So imagine the same question as above but with stuff like "dimensionality", "spatial", "temporal", etc. You get what i mean