Final Crisis #7 revision

[Xearsay]

After looking at a previous thread, I realized there was a lot of dishonesty and lying. So I wanted to create a new thread addressing the dishonest arguments along with some new arguments of my own.

Proposal
Mandrakk should be given his plot manipulation back due to manipulating the plot by bringing the “end of all stories” during Final Crisis.

Defining story
“Story” in this context is simply the inexorable, never-ending plot or narrative of the DC universe which forms histories and governs realities. As stated in Final Crisis Superman Beyond.

Statement 1: “And story, like contagion spreads unchecked. Becomes this history of a once might race of hyper-gods…” (Final Crisis Superman Beyond #1)

Statement 2: “I’m inside a self assembling Hyperstory. And it’s trying it’s best to destroy me.” (Final Crisis Superman Beyond #2)

Additionally, in Multiversity we see the inexorable nature of story, where the story continues and goes on whether the reader wants it to or not. After the Gentry literally ended the story of Ultra Comics, (Multiversity Ultra Comics) they narrated the beginning of the following issue in the Multiversity series saying, “Just when you thought it was all over! The story goes on with or without you.” (Multiversity #2)

Mandrakks Plot Manipulation Explanation
Now that we know what the “story” is I can explain how this connects to Final Crisis. During Final Crisis, Mandrakk was manipulating the plot by trying to bring the “end of all stories.” Part of the reason we know this is through Mandrakks own statements.

Statement 1: “Here at the end of all stories. Where Mandrakk waits for you.” (Final Crisis #7)

Statement 2: “Black matter demons will devour these last traces of story.” (Final Crisis #7)

The other part of the reason involves the Miracle Machine. Now about the Miracle Machine. The Miracle Machine is a device capable of one wish, that essentially makes one’s thoughts reality. Superman used the Miracle Machine during the end of Final Crisis against Darkseid to wish for a happy ending. However once Mandrakk shows up bringing the end of all stories, Superman reactivates the Miracle Machine to win.

Nix Uotan’s statement: “He wished for a happy ending.” (Final Crisis #7)

The counter argument was that the Miracle Machine doesn’t manipulate the plot. However we know this is false because the Oblivion Machine, which represents the final chapter on the never-ending story of DC, is supposed to accomplish this by undoing Superman's wish made via the Miracle Machine against Darkeid and Mandrakk during Final Crisis.

Statement 1: “The Gentry labor to complete the Oblivion Machine. The final chapter of your never-ending story.” (Multiversity #2)

Statement 2: “There the Gentry labor to complete the Oblivion Machine. To undo the wish once made upon the Miracle Machine.” (Justice League Incarnate #4)

Further proof
Now that we know the Miracle Machine did indeed manipulate the plot, Superman activating the Miracle Machine to manipulate the plot twice during Final Crisis further proves that Mandrakk was legitimately trying to bring the end of all stories because if Mandrakk wasn’t Superman wouldn’t have needed to alter the plot for a happy ending again due to the Miracle Machines first activation already accomplishing that.

Another counter argument was that “Mandrakk was just trying to destroy the Multiverse.” However this doesn’t contradict Mandrakk having plot manipulation because these two things can and do coexist. By bringing the end of all stories Mandrakk is also ending the Multiverse.

Examples from other characters
And lastly the idea that closing the chapter on a narrative counts as plot manipulation is supported through other characters on this wiki.

One example is Azrael from Discworld who has “the end of all stories” listed as one of the reasons for his plot manipulation.
https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Azrael_(Discworld)

Another example is Miyama Kaito
https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Miyama_Kaito_(Web_Novel)
Plot Manipulation (The Epilogue has the ability to bring the end itself[29]. When the book is closed, the story comes to an end. When the curtain is pulled down, the stage is over. You may go back to the start again, but it will be the reader who decides whether your story is opened again)

 

[ImmortalDread]

After looking at a previous thread, I realized there was a lot of dishonesty and lying. So I wanted to create a new thread addressing the dishonest arguments along with some new arguments of my own.

@Deagonx just could not explain it easier for you, so you simply misinterpreted it.

Defining story

“Story” in this context is simply the inexorable, never-ending plot or narrative of the DC universe which forms histories and governs realities. As stated in Final Crisis Superman Beyond.

Can you send an evidence for that definition

 

[Deagonx]

Good grief. This is the third thread in a row that has attempted to give plot manipulation within a span of like two months? You cannot keep spamming CRTs simply because you're dissatisfied with the result.

Simply put, there is no evidence anywhere in the comics that indicate that Mandrakk can alter the details of an existing narrative. He cant decide whether Superman turns left or right, says this or that. He can't change the past.

At the most generous interpretation, all of these references to story are metaphorical made by beings who are explicitly trying to destroy the multiverse.

There's no indication that Mandrakk or the Gentry/Empty Hand see the multiverse as fictional or that they can edit the story like an author. Them "ending a story" by killing everyone is not plot manipulation. Firestorm explained this pretty thoroughly.

 

[Xearsay]

Can you send an evidence for that definition

The evidence that supports story being a fundamental aspect of reality which also governs it and forms its histories is already in the thread.

As shown in Multiversity, outside of existence DC is a flaw and an endless play of matter and narrative. Story forms histories, as revealed to us In Final Crisis where narrative spread and formed the history of the Monitor race. “And story, like contagion spreads unchecked. Becomes this history of a once might race of hyper-gods…” (Final Crisis Superman Beyond #1)

Furthermore, story governs realities and its progression is unstoppable as shown in Multiversity after the Gentry literally ended the story of Ultra Comics, (Multiversity Ultra Comics) they narrated the beginning of the following issue in the Multiversity series saying, “Just when you thought it was all over! The story goes on with or without you” (Multiversity #2) which initiates the beginning of the next issue of Multiversity. Proving that story is essentially the plot that governs and pushes the progression of reality in DC.

There’s more examples than this, however these are the simpler ones to understand.

 

[Deagonx]

Ending stories isn't plot manipulation.

Proving that story is essentially the plot that governs the progression of every aspect of reality in DC.

You have an extremely charitable definition of the word prove.

 

[Xearsay]

Ending stories isn't plot manipulation.

Defying the progression of the story/plot and bringing it to an end when it’s not supposed to end, is plot manipulation. As one has to have some level of control over the plot to defy its progression, and bring it to an end.

 

[Deagonx]

Defying the progression of the story/plot and bringing it to an end when it’s not supposed to end, is plot manipulation.

No. They need to be able to determine what occurs, not just end it.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with Deagonx. We should preferably close this thread as it is just repetition of a rejected suggestion.

 

[Transcending]

Examples from other characters

Were these addressed?

 

[Transcending]

While I am not sure Mandrakk qualifies for Plot Manip, I do think he should get EE at the very least

 

[Antvasima]

What is the evidence for existence erasure?

 

[Transcending]

What is the evidence for existence erasure?

Destroying stories. According to Regeneration's page-

The ability to regenerate after the erasure of body, mind, and soul, along with at least one even more fundamental aspect of a character's existence, such as their place in the narrative, their entire history, or the underlying information (Type 2) or concept(s) (Type 1 or 2, but only very rarely 3, if there is strong evidence of being similar to the former types in terms of how hard it is to regenerate from them) needed for them to exi

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I do not think that the word stories was meant literally by Mandrakk, but it may qualify for other reasons.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I agree with Deagonx. We should preferably close this thread as it is just repetition of a rejected suggestion.

This is a bit harsh, since no discussion rule exists. Or do they exist?

 

[Deagonx]

This is a bit harsh, since no discussion rule exists. Or do they exist?

What do you mean by discussion rule

 

[ImmortalDread]

What do you mean by discussion rule

The only situation where a moderator can close a thread without requiring a consensus or a report is if there is a violation of the discussion rule.

 

[Deagonx]

The only permission that a moderator can close the thread without needing a concusses or a report is having a discussion rule.

I believe this falls under "First check if a certain topic has been handled previously." It's normal to close threads that are just an attempt to rehash a settled matter.

 

[Transcending]

Okay. I do not think that the word stories was meant literally by Mandrakk, but it may qualify for other reasons.

I was referring to Grant Morrison's statement

 

[ImmortalDread]

I believe this falls under "First check if a certain topic has been handled previously." It's normal to close threads that are just an attempt to rehash a settled matter.

Actually, I am not opposing your view, as I also concur with the notion of closing the thread. However, I believe that it is crucial to maintain fairness for everyone involved. If the thread is not being reported and the OP has not requested its closure, then a single moderator should not make a decision without consulting others and seeking their opinions.

To reiterate, I support your position, @Deagonx, but I also believe that we must adhere to the appropriate procedures, such as having a discussion rule in place or the thread being reported, before closing it.

 

[Deagonx]

I think the existing rule is good, but we could add an addendum to it making it clear that attempts to re-open a closed matter shortly after it's conclusion will be closed, so that its implications are more clear.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, it just isn't reasonable to allow already rejected topics to be reopened over and over in quite quick succession.

However, I suppose that we can discuss existence erasure to be added.

 

[Transcending]

I don't think we should close right now, we should discuss Existence Erasure.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, but plot manipulation has already been rejected.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I think the existing rule is good, but we could add an addendum to it making it clear that attempts to re-open a closed matter shortly after it's conclusion will be closed, so that its implications are more clear.

Oh, wait, the rule already exists? Mind show one?

 

[Deagonx]

Oh, wait, the rule already exists? Mind show one?

I was referring to the one I quoted. "First check if a certain topic has been handled previously." It implies pretty clearly that it's not appropriate to make a thread about an already handled topic.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I was referring to the one I quoted. "First check if a certain topic has been handled previously." It implies pretty clearly that it's not appropriate to make a thread about an already handled topic.

Basically, the majority of the topics being addressed are discussion rules. Therefore, if one of these topics is being heavily rejected, I am willing to establish a rule for it.

However, as long as a topic does not break any rules, it is acceptable for discussion even if it has been addressed before.

 

[Deagonx]

It's not like the issue is never allowed to be discussed again. But it's of course not allowed to make a thread immediately after it just got rejected, especially since this is the third thread in as many months.

 

[ImmortalDread]

It's not like the issue is never allowed to be discussed again. But it's of course not allowed to make a thread immediately after it just got rejected, especially since this is the third thread in as many months.

Can you share me all threads in my DMs? I am willing to create a discussion rule for it.

 

[Deagonx]

I don't think it's prudent to make a discussion rule for every single matter that's addressed and definitively rejected, personally.

 

[Antvasima]

That seems like a good idea. Thank you for helping out. Also, please include me, DontTalkDT, and AKM sama in the PM discussion thread.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I don't think it's prudent to make a discussion rule for every single matter that's addressed and definitively rejected, personally.

If a particular topic is frequently rejected and it becomes exhausting to repeatedly present counterarguments, whether or not there is a discussion rule in place won't be an issue.

Moreover, discussion rules are designed to serve this exact purpose.

 

[Antvasima]

I don't think it's prudent to make a discussion rule for every single matter that's addressed and definitively rejected, personally.

Well, if there are any major loopholes in our rules, even for self-evident issues, it seems like certain types of members will use them as weapons against us.

 

[ImmortalDread]

That seems like a good idea. Thank you for helping out. Also, please include me, DontTalkDT, and AKM sama in the PM discussion thread.

Sure thing!

 

[Transcending]

Okay, but plot manipulation has already been rejected.

Does EE sound good?

 

[Deagonx]

If a particular topic is frequently rejected and it becomes exhausting to repeatedly present counterarguments, whether or not there is a discussion rule in place won't be an issue.

I understand that, but I do not believe this issue has reached such a threshold, personally.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I understand that, but I do not believe this issue has reached such a threshold, personally.

I created a PM discussion, we can discuss this privately and not derail this thread.

 

[Antvasima]

There seems to have been a misunderstanding, as I thought that you were going to write a more general rule regarding the specifics for how long it is forbidden to bring up the same staff-rejected content revision suggestions over and over again. That is why I wanted you to include DontTalk and AKM in our PM thread as well.

 

[Transcending]

Since that's settled-

Does EE sound good?

 

[ImmortalDread]

The whole thread is talking about plot manipulation, where is EE part?

 

[Transcending]

The whole thread is talking about plot manipulation, where is EE part?

EE isn't part of the original proposal but I think the feats given qualify for EE rather than Plot Manip