2A (Possibly L1C) Devil May Cry - A relevant closer to a CRT

[SeijiSetto]

The thread discussing the "Ray of Light" was specifically about the Low 1-C upgrade which was rejected in the past for reasons but my argument is entirely different from that. The focus here isn't on making a direct leap to Low 1-C but rather on the implications of seeing an entire universe as merely an infinitesimal aspect within an infinite darkness. It atleast suggests that the darkness can contain an infinite number of similar universes which logically aligns with 2-A scaling.

and this is the premise that was rejected in the other thread about containers
what you are using as your argument is "the surrounding darkness is infinitely bigger than a universe in it and so could theoretically contain an infinite number of universes therefore the surrounding darkness is 2-A"

It being referred to in that manner still conveys the same underlying concept even if it isn’t explicitly spelled out in a way that spoon-feeds the interpretation. As you yourself pointed out, the kanji 一条 indeed a counter for streaks, rays or lines but that doesn’t necessarily negate the implications there.

You can take it either geometric or poetic but it doesn't take away the fundament idea that the universe is portrayed as an infinitesimal streak within an infinitely greater space.

my point was that this comparison is still shaky for anything Low 1-C (and was rejected in the past)
i said it could be read as infinitely larger but then we go to the "being an infinite container isn't 2-A" thing again

I'm pretty sure that discussion was about the "container" itself merely being labeled as infinite but this case is entirely different. In this case, we have a clear-cut example of it being infinite in "comparison" to a fully fleshed-out universe and from an authorial intent perspective, that strongly implies 2-A.

see your own post

The thread discussing the "Ray of Light" was specifically about the Low 1-C upgrade which was rejected in the past for reasons but my argument is entirely different from that. The focus here isn't on making a direct leap to Low 1-C but rather on the implications of seeing an entire universe as merely an infinitesimal aspect within an infinite darkness. It atleast suggests that the darkness can contain an infinite number of similar universes which logically aligns with 2-A scaling.

anyway no i don't think a universe being infinite in comparison to another gives you 2-A
2-A is for affecting infinite universes or affecting something that is doing so
a single one being big wouldn't really be anything i think

 

[Random-Helper323]

From what I could tell, the multiversal container thread was only discussing part of the story. The question in that thread was whether a dimension being infinite and also containing a universe meant it was 2-A.

This DMC thread was actually not about that. It was about whether a dimension that contains a universe and is described as infinitely larger than it can qualify for that rating. Not just infinite, but infinitely larger than a universe and thus large enough to contain an infinite number of them. Interestingly, I'm given to understand another verse, Reincarnated as a Slime, already has a 2-A rating for that reasoning.

 

[CloverDragon03]

It's the same thing, let's be real. Because nothing in DMC is actually in-universe infinitely larger than a universe

 

[SuperSonicTL]

It's the same thing, let's be real. Because nothing in DMC is actually in-universe infinitely larger than a universe

Based on what? Broski your personal opinions should stay with you only, the scan I provided clearly says otherwise with enough reading comprehension.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Based on what? Broski your personal opinions should stay with you only, the scan I provided clearly says otherwise with enough reading comprehension.

First of all, lmao at this kind of overly defensive response over DMC scaling of all things

Second, is it just not possible to not be convinced by something or what?

 

[Agnaa]

Based on what? Broski your personal opinions should stay with you only, the scan I provided says otherwise.

If you just mean the old "there was a line of light, and the world ended up separated into two. Darkness is the demon world, and light is the human world".

As I mentioned the last thread you brought this up in, that seems to pretty clearly be talking about the line of light appearing and ending up becoming comparable in size to the darkness. Because:

• If the line was always there, a small thing in comparison to the endless expanse, it would not make sense to describe it as "endless darkness", or to talk about a change like "and the world ended up separated".
• If it was a line that did not cut through the entire space, it would not be "separating" it into two.
• If the line was negligible in comparison to the darkness, the two things which would be mentioned would not be the "darkness" and the "light". It would be something like "the original darkness" and "the darkness now cut off from the rest", or any other similar approach.

The scan does not say that there's a small bit of light compared to an infinite darkness. It says that previously there was an endless darkness, but that some light appeared, and ended up creating the distinction of there being two worlds; one of darkness, and one of light. With there only being one dark world, the light would have to have grown to encompass a comparable amount; leaving no darkness on one side of its boundary.

 

[SuperSonicTL]

First of all, lmao at this kind of overly defensive response over DMC scaling of all things

Second, is it just not possible to not be convinced by something or what?

Because I feel like you are actually being dishonest here with this statement ngl.

The scan clearly depicts the quality and quantity difference and yet you are trying to claim otherwise.

 

[Agnaa]

Because I feel like you are actually being dishonest here with this statement ngl.

The scan clearly depicts the quality and quantity difference and yet you are trying to claim otherwise.

1-A DMC?

 

[Bobsican]

Would recommend to make a discussion rule on the whole ray of light deal at this point.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Okay well Agnaa beat me to the punch, but basically, it's obvious that the light grows into its own world of comparable size. Hell, the image in that scan shows as much, as the light side isn't depicted as being massively smaller than the dark side. They're shown to be comparable. And the number of times that the two realms have been attempted to be merged together is particularly noteworthy, because it wouldn't be a "merge" if one realm was massively larger than the other. Just an assimilation. It's self-evidently an equal split

So yeah, the line of light thing was bogus for Low 1-C and it's bogus for 2-A for the same reason. Frankly, I'd implore any staff supporting this to reconsider

1-A DMC?

L M A O

 

[SuperSonicTL]

If you just mean the old "there was a line of light, and the world ended up separated into two. Darkness is the demon world, and light is the human world".

As I mentioned the last thread you brought this up in, that seems to pretty clearly be talking about the line of light appearing and ending up becoming comparable in size to the darkness. Because:

• If the line was always there, a small thing in comparison to the endless expanse, it would not make sense to describe it as "endless darkness", or to talk about a change like "and the world ended up separated".
• If it was a line that did not cut through the entire space, it would not be "separating" it into two.
• If the line was negligible in comparison to the darkness, the two things which would be mentioned would not be the "darkness" and the "light". It would be something like "the original darkness" and "the darkness now cut off from the rest", or any other similar approach.

The scan does not say that there's a small bit of light compared to an infinite darkness. It says that previously there was an endless darkness, but that some light appeared, and ended up creating the distinction of there being two worlds; one of darkness, and one of light.

I'm not quite understanding your implications here...

1. The darkness was originally all-encompassing and within it, a ray of light came into existence.
2. It has already been established that Pluto was the one who split these two opposing forces into separate worlds as explained here.
3. The fact that they are referred to as "Light" and "Darkness" already conveys it. The darkness being endless while a small ray of light appears within it is not a direct comparison in terms of size but a qualitative distinction which would work the same either way.

 

[SuperSonicTL]

1-A DMC?

Okay now you are just trolling >:V

 

[SuperSonicTL]

Alright, let’s be serious. This feels like beating a dead horse at this point.

Can we proceed with the established votes or not? Just a simple yes or no. If we can, great. If not, I’ll let it go and try again another time with a rather different approach.

 

[Agnaa]

I'm not quite understanding your implications here...

The darkness was originally all-encompassing and within it, a ray of light came into existence.

Yep.

It has already been established that Pluto was the one who split these two opposing forces into separate worlds as explained here.

Not seeing the relevance of this.

The fact that they are referred to as "Light" and "Darkness" already conveys it. The darkness being endless while a small ray of light appears within it is not a direct comparison in terms of size but a qualitative distinction which would work the same either way.

Yes, my issue isn't that they mentioned light and darkness. My issues are:

• The initial state was endless darkness. The ray of light appeared later.
• The world of endless darkness was separated into two. The only plausible states for this are "a world of darkness, and a world of light", which could only happen if the light had only light on one side of its boundary, which necessitates it being comparable in size.

 

[SuperSonicTL]

Yes, my issue isn't that they mentioned light and darkness. My issues are:

• The initial state was endless darkness. The ray of light appeared later.
• The world of endless darkness was separated into two. The only plausible states for this are "a world of darkness, and a world of light", which could only happen if the light had only light on one side of its boundary, which necessitates it being comparable in size.

Except there’s no implication of light existing before this point—it’s just described in a poetic sense. The darkness represents all the evils and negativity of the original world while the light embodies the opposing force that randomly spawned into it at some point and had to be separated from the overall world for reasons.

It’s actually a very interesting concept that I’d like to explore in a CRT later so I won’t go into too much detail now. But there’s a specific reason why it’s depicted this way.

 

[Agnaa]

Except there’s no implication of light existing before this point

I think that's what my first point you quoted there says.

 

[SuperSonicTL]

I think that's what my first point you quoted there says.

I'm genuinely confused about what you’re trying to imply here… Uh, yes? That’s exactly the point? The Light wasn’t present before. But I don’t see how that proves it was comparable in size. Just because a universe was separated for specific reasons, does that automatically mean it had to be of comparable scale?

The entire point of that panel is to show how insignificant our universe is in comparison to the Underworld if it is depicted as a finite Ray of Light to an Endless/Infinite Darkness and I think it proves that just fine.

Anyways:

Two weeks have passed.

2-A was accepted here.

I really wanna know if I'm able to apply it or not after waiting for months... Or you want me to forfeit and close it like that?

Just answer this and I will do whatever you say.

 

[Agnaa]

If I were to mandate a compromise right this second, I think from those votes just 2-A would make the most sense. But really, this is the sort of case where we'd try to get more staff discussion, until people decide to come to a compromise.

 

[SuperSonicTL]

If I were to mandate a compromise right this second, I think from those votes just 2-A would make the most sense. But really, this is the sort of case where we'd try to get more staff discussion, until people decide to come to a compromise.

So... Does this mean I can apply 2-A now or do I need to wait for more staff discussion? I've given like 2-3 extra weeks to discuss it out and it seems everyone is fine with their original stance. Just need a clear answer so I know what to do.

 

[CodeCCLL]

From what I could tell, the multiversal container thread was only discussing part of the story. The question in that thread was whether a dimension being infinite and also containing a universe meant it was 2-A.

This DMC thread was actually not about that. It was about whether a dimension that contains a universe and is described as infinitely larger than it can qualify for that rating. Not just infinite, but infinitely larger than a universe and thus large enough to contain an infinite number of them. Interestingly, I'm given to understand another verse, Reincarnated as a Slime, already has a 2-A rating for that reasoning.

You haven't even read the thread in question, so it's no surprise you don't understand it.

 

[Agnaa]

So... Does this mean I can apply 2-A now or do I need to wait for more staff discussion? I've given like 2-3 extra weeks to discuss it out and it seems everyone is fine with their original stance. Just need a clear answer so I know what to do.

Yeah I think that's probably a safe choice. If Clover/Seiji want to convince people to get this overturned, they can ask staff members directly whether they find certain arguments convincing, and if enough flip (at this point, I'd say at least 3) a followup thread could be made to get 2-A removed. Or they could wait a few months for a counter-thread to naturally be justified.

 

[SuperSonicTL]

Yeah I think that's probably a safe choice. If Clover/Seiji want to convince people to get this overturned, they can ask staff members directly whether they find certain arguments convincing, and if enough flip (at this point, I'd say at least 3) a followup thread could be made to get 2-A removed. Or they could wait a few months for a counter-thread to naturally be justified.

Then this should be closed as it is. I'm applying it now.

 

[Agnaa]

I'm genuinely confused about what you’re trying to imply here… Uh, yes? That’s exactly the point? The Light wasn’t present before. But I don’t see how that proves it was comparable in size.

It doesn't prove that on its own, but it does:

• Mean that the ray wasn't actually compared in size to the endless void, as the statement of it being endless, and of the ray of light piercing it, referred to two different moments in time. This means that the ray could've similarly been endless.
• Mean that there wasn't a steady-state of the ray sitting around as a mere line. Making the idea that it quickly grew to be comparable more meaningful, as it likely happened before any other relevant story events where we'd get indications of the human-realm being universe-sized.

The entire point of that panel is to show how insignificant our universe is in comparison to the Underworld if it is depicted as a finite Ray of Light to an Endless/Infinite Darkness and I think it proves that just fine.

No, I think the point of the panel is to establish a bog standard "light pierced the primordial chaos and created a side of Demons and Mortals" cosmology.

 

[SeijiSetto]

From what I could tell, the multiversal container thread was only discussing part of the story. The question in that thread was whether a dimension being infinite and also containing a universe meant it was 2-A.

This DMC thread was actually not about that. It was about whether a dimension that contains a universe and is described as infinitely larger than it can qualify for that rating. Not just infinite, but infinitely larger than a universe and thus large enough to contain an infinite number of them.

quoting the OP

[...]
'''Multiverse level+''' (Destroyed a infinite space-time continuum that held several other universes within itself, due to being infinite, the space can theoretically contain an infinite space-time continuum)

As you can see, the 2-A justification is using the hypothetical logic that because the bigger space is likely infinite, it theoretically can contain an infinite number of space-time continuum. However, according to one of our staff members on the DMC thread, we don't have an actual standard for this. Which brings us here now.
[...]

no, the OP very much tackled the crux of this revision. that's why it was made. it would be kinda silly if it didn't.
CodeCCLL already made this point but here's the exact part of the thread that addresses what's being talked about.

anyway
@Planck69 @Theglassman12 @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @UchihaSlayer96 @Emirp sumitpo @Firestorm808
you guys are written as agreeing with 2-A in the OP so i'm just pinging you to ask you to have a reread of the discussion that's gone on and see if your argument has changed.
important things i think to link are my argument (basically saying that the thread we had to discuss whether infinitely-larger-than-a-single-universe containers-count-as-2-A is currently at 3 disagrees no agrees [and i don't personally think it should be either but my single vote doesn't mean anything], and that the "ray of light" scan doesn't display any qualitative difference for Low 1-C either)
the infinitely-larger-than-a-single-universe containers-count-as-2-A thread in question if any of you want to give opinions on that so it can actually conclude and set a precedent

 

[SuperSonicTL]

quoting the OP

no, the OP very much tackled the crux of this revision. that's why it was made. it would be kinda silly if it didn't.
CodeCCLL already made this point but here's the exact part of the thread that addresses what's being talked about.

anyway
@Planck69 @Theglassman12 @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @UchihaSlayer96 @Emirp sumitpo @Firestorm808
you guys are written as agreeing with 2-A in the OP so i'm just pinging you to ask you to have a reread of the discussion that's gone on and see if your argument has changed.
important things i think to link are my argument (basically saying that the thread we had to discuss whether infinitely-larger-than-a-single-universe containers-count-as-2-A is currently at 3 disagrees no agrees [and i don't personally think it should be either but my single vote doesn't mean anything], and that the "ray of light" scan doesn't display any qualitative difference for Low 1-C either)
the infinitely-larger-than-a-single-universe containers-count-as-2-A thread in question if any of you want to give opinions on that so it can actually conclude and set a precedent

Where were you have been when I gave everyone like 2-3 weeks to openly discuss it out...

I'd say make another counter-thread discussing it after 2-3 months, it's futile at this point if I'm being real here. I ain't waiting any longer一I need this **** closed. So, kindly refrain from such behavior.

 

[SeijiSetto]

Where were you have been when I gave everyone like 2-3 weeks to openly discuss it out...

I'd say make another counter-thread discussing it after 2-3 months, it's futile at this point if I'm being real here. I ain't waiting any longer一I need this **** closed. So, kindly refrain from such behavior.

you can do what you want i don't care lol
agnaa gave you the go-ahead to apply 2-A
in the same post he also gave me/clover the go-ahead to ask staff members if any of them have changed their minds

 

[SuperSonicTL]

you can do what you want i don't care lol
agnaa gave you the go-ahead to apply 2-A
in the same post he also gave me/clover the go-ahead to ask staff members if any of them have changed their minds

Soo... What's the cache here? Wait few more weeks so you can get atleast one staff member convinced with your arguments and I end up reverting everything back to 2-C after applying 2-A?

I don't think you realized this but the time is not of the essence here anymore, there are multiple threads going on and mods don't care to reply, especially on such threads.

 

[Agnaa]

Soo... What's the cache here? Wait few more weeks so you can get atleast one staff member convinced with your arguments and I end up reverting everything back to 2-C after applying 2-A?

I don't think you realized this but the time is not of essence here now, there are multiple threads going on and mods don't care to reply anymore, especially on such threads.

To clarify, I'd want 3 staff members flipped (going from agreeing with 2-A, to agreeing with 2-C, probably another one if it was for 2-B instead). Since each flip would subtract one disagree and add one agree, I'd want twice as many staff if they were all new votes.

And ofc, any new thread would need to wait for a free slot for DMC to open up.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I haven't been able to comment because of irl issues. The staff thread is pretty much done but even if I switching my neutral vote on 2-A to disagree wouldn't change that it has more agreements, plus the OP has been waiting a long time and it's not like staff are commenting and those who have aren't changing their thoughts. So if 2-A is applied then so be it.

As Agnaa pointed and is a standard new thread can be made when enough DMC threads are done and the enough time has passed. I'm not gonna keep anyone waiting especially since I can't consistently comment due to irl issues.

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

Finally, let's finish this and apply 2-A to Dante and the entire verse.

 

[SuperSonicTL]

Then I'm applying it now. Someone close this thread please.

 

[SeijiSetto]

Then I'm applying it now. Someone close this thread please.

just wait. the thread being open or closed won't change whether you can apply it or not.
i've pinged the agreeing staff for comment, let's see if anything does anything.

 

[SuperSonicTL]

just wait. the thread being open or closed won't change whether you can apply it or not.
i've pinged the agreeing staff for comment, let's see if anything does anything.

You were abit late... Meh I'd let you revert it back if something changes一this **** won't longer be my pain anymore.

 

[SeijiSetto]

You were abit late... Meh I'd let you revert it back if something changes一this **** won't longer be my pain anymore.

you realize i was telling you to apply it anyway???????? again, agnaa gave you the go-ahead lol
i'm just saying the thread doesn't need to be rushed to closure

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

you realize i was telling you to apply it anyway???????? again, agnaa gave you the go-ahead lol
i'm just saying the thread doesn't need to be rushed to closure

It's been 48 hours since it was accepted, is there really anything else to be argued? If it's not about 2-A this should be closed.

 

[SeijiSetto]

It's been 48 hours since it was accepted, is there really anything else to be argued? If it's not about 2-A this should be closed.

if you read basically any of the past messages you would know the only debate left to be had is about the 2-A rating, yes

 

[Agnaa]

just wait. the thread being open or closed won't change whether you can apply it or not.
i've pinged the agreeing staff for comment, let's see if anything does anything.

Meh, the agreeing staff can comment on closed threads anyway. I'll close this to signify that the topic's considered concluded, and another DMC thread slot can open up.