About unofficial author statements.

[The_real_cal_howard]

How do we even handle these? I'm not just talking about Twitter and DMC. I'm talking about in general. But it's mostly Twitter related. If it's not from an interview, my belief is that we take it with a grain of salt. Frankly, I don't believe we should take it at all, due to death of the author, and official interviews should be the grain of salt things. Any random schmuck could go and ask them questions, some even trying to bait out an answer, being super specific and saying explicitly vs related things. It's like asking Toriyama if Goku could bypass the Regenerationn of people who could come back from nothing, and he said yes to shut them up. But I've been seeing it quite a bit. The Godzilla verse just got a ton of upgrades due to Twitter DMs I think, and we all know DMC's story. We also know Rick & Morty got downgraded, and we don't listen at all to Marvel and Demonbane's twitter stuff. So, frankly, we should have a set precedent for it. I have seen us be quite...ridiculed for accepting that, and while we don't care, nor should care about what others say about it, what if they're right. Again, Death of the Author is a thing.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that we have already written rules about this. Wait a bit and I will check.

 

[Ryukama]

I think WoG is fine if it's more of an in verse thing and the series itself supports or doesn't entirely contradict it.

Like ONE saying that Monster Garou is on par with Boros. This isn't too controversial or outlandish of a statement. And MG has some feats that help support this like him surviving Serious Series attacks from Saitama.

If ONE said something like "Monster Garou is on par with Beerus", comparing him to someone from a separate series or made an outlandish unsupported statement like "Garou can destroy multiple universes", then don't go with that.

I am also highly against people bothering the authors on Twitter and trying to extract a favorable answer out of them. The Demonbane and Rick and Morty situations are painfully obvious examples of that.

EDIT: Well the "Monster Garou is on par with Boros" comes from an official interview. So I suppose it's a bit different. But I guess if the Twitter statement is similarly reliable, we can use it. However for the most part we do not go with such sources.

 

[Antvasima]

Here is what I found in the Editing Rules page:

"Also generally try to avoid scaling between different fictions via author statements about one character being comparable with another. It will usually be very uninformed assumptions, or hyperbole, and even if both stories have the same author, he or she may be biased, or not know exactly how powerful the different characters have been shown to be in relation to each other."

"Regarding direct information from the author/creator of a character: We do not use statements that are phrased in an uncertain, uncaring, and/or unspecific manner, such as "Could be", "Maybe", "Probably", "Possibly" etcetera. The statements also need to be consistent with what has been revealed within the fictional franchise itself. Otherwise, it will be considered as an Inconsistency or Outlier."

"When a statement from a character, guidebook, or even word of god contradicts what occurs in the series, they won't be used. For example, if an author says that a character from his work is incapable of shattering planets, even though it has destroyed galaxies on-screen, we will always go with the latter, rather than the former."

 

[Antvasima]

For the record, I am also very uncertain about scaling Godzilla from brief questions and answers, and consider the composite page a complete mess.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

The main problem is it's a social media site, rather than an interview with someone who's job it is to get information from the creator/writers. Here's an example:

I met the creator of Young Justice at a party (true story). If I could provide information that he agreed with my statement that Superboy could destroy planets, Wally is 10000000 times faster than light, and Aquaman can cut on the atomic level, would we accept that? Because some of the things we currently accept are very similar to that.

@Ryu. Iirc, ONE said that in an actual interview, which while controversial, is still likely legitimate.

 

[Antvasima]

I personally think that we should only accept statements that clearly clarify what has been shown in a series itself, not anything taken out of thin air, especially given that different writers have different opinions.

 

[Ryukama]

@Cal That's why I said "Well the "Monster Garou is on par with Boros" comes from an official interview. So I suppose it's a bit different."

I agree with Ant.

 

[Antvasima]

So, should we propose an additional rule that clarifies this?

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

@Ryu. You edited that in after I posted .

@Ant. I agree to an extent. However, that extent is only if there's a ton of info on that part, yet still controversial and not proven, and it was clarified by that.

For example, say I asked Shigeru Miyamoto if Sheik was a boy or a girl, and he said girl. I could 100% side with that.

 

[Ryukama]

@Cal No I didn't. I edited it long before your reply. You probably didn't refresh though.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

Fair enough. But the should've tipped off the fact that I wasn't entirely serious.

 

[Ryukama]

Ovokay.

 

[Amelia_Lonelyheart]

I largely agree with Ryu and Cal. Death of the author is a very real thing, and extracting favorable questions from writers is not a good thing to do. That said, if it's a question regarding the context of something vague that doesn't necessarily retain to vs-debating, I can let it slide with some leniency.

@Cal/Ant

To be fair, I believe the Mountain of God from Godzilla would've been 3-A even without the twitter post, since apparently the Devil created the "Hell Dimension" and God Mountain created the "Earth Dimension" or something like that. Ironically, the constant use of twitter post in the Godzilla profiles made them less creditable.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

The God Mountain thing fits with my Sheik example. I'm ok with that one.

 

[Antvasima]

So, is anybody willing to write a draft regulation text for this? I can modify the text flow later if necessary.

 

[Lina_Shields]

'Ryukama wrote
I think WoG is fine if it's more of an in verse thing and the series itself supports or doesn't entirely contradict it.

This statement makes sense to me. As long as the author's statements regarding a feat does not contradict with what is directly shown to us on screen, I see no reason to refuse said author's statement, as assuming it otherwise would basically be enforcing your own personal views on what the author directly stated.

• Note that Demonbane's twitter stuff was not considered because the statement/feat that was shown to us is drastically different from what the author stated.

Now let's review the term "Death of the Author"

• The definition of Death of the Author means that the writer/author's views about their own work are no more/less valid in comparison to the interpretations of said person reading the author's work.

The issue with this, however, is that this explanation seems to only apply in literary works, and not in games/media/etc...

It is unnecessary to write an actual rule for this topic, as we already have a rule regarding this topic. The author's statements in a specific feat matter ONLY if said feat shown to us does not contradict the author's statement on that specific feat.

Cal's proposal here is unnecessary.

 

[Antvasima]

I personally think that we should only accept statements that clearly clarify what has been shown in a series itself, not anything taken out of thin air, especially given that different writers have different opinions.

Well, Ryukama said that he agreed with this, or that is the way that I understood it anyway.

 

[Ryukama]

Just because Death of the Author was coined specifically for literature, does not mean the concept is inapplicable to other genres of narratives such as movies or games.

Though I agree we already have sufficient rules for this.

Yeah if the story itself doesn't directly contradict the statement, it can be taken a bit more seriously. However I don't think we should accept outlandish statements that are not at all supported in the series. Especially when the statements come from a fan clearly attempting to extract it out of the author.

I don't want someone whose best feats are Wall level getting rated as 3-A via a statement since that technically isn't contradicted in the story. FYI this is not an exaggeration. There are FAR more severe examples of this that we did used to allow. 2-A Rick for instance. His best feats are literally infinitely below that.

And yes I agree with what Ant says for the most part.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Death of the Author applies in any work of fiction that has an author.

I personally don't think that we should ever accept lengthy upgrades / downgrades based on what this or said author said on twitter or on tumblr after being bogged down by numerous questions.

Tom Brevoort saying on his tumblr that Thor can't throw 100s of punches in 60 seconds, that Silver Surfer is as slow as a normal human in combat, that God Emperor Doom is "Omnipotent but not Omniscient", and that Quicksilver never went faster than light, are not valid reasons to upgrade or downgrade the characters.

An official video on Marvel's Youtube Account saying that Thing is stronger than Sentry is also not valid, as is not Stan Lee saying that Galactus is the strongest Marvel villain.

However, Grant Morrison explaining in a 5 Page Interview with IGN all his ideas and intents with Final Crisis, and elaborating that the Overmonitor is meant to be the white canvas in which the story is drawn, is a valid thing to use.

Basically, ask these two questions:

Is this in any way implied or shown in the actual narrative?

How much time did the author likely put into the answer?

 

[Ryukama]

Agreed with Matt entirely.

 

[Antvasima]

@Ryukama I also agree with Matthew.

@Matthew Are you willing to write a new concise regulation for these types of situations? I can improve upon the text flow if necessary, as usual.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

For instance, Mundus from DMC is currently accepted as 3-A because a one-word twitter response saying that he "created a universe"

However... Look at Hideki Kamiya's history with writing twitter answers:

https://twitter.com/PG_kamiya/status/759740219587387397

"Could Mundus exist outside of a 10 dimensional plane?"

"Ask Him."

https://twitter.com/PG_kamiya/status/768979631605035009

"does The Watcher of Time actually exist in DMC and if he does is he more powerful than Mundus?"

"Play DMC 6."

https://twitter.com/PG_kamiya/status/760513034573885441

"At their best, which character(s) can defeat Mundus in a fight?: 1.Viewtiful Joe 2.Amaterasu 3.Bayonetta 4.W101+"

"Ask ur mom."

https://twitter.com/PG_kamiya/status/758739762962272256

"Are Mundus's powers like Unlimited Blade Works, where inner universes are created, but are way easier to destroy th"

"Ask him."

https://twitter.com/PG_kamiya/status/758824252376133633

"I would also love to know the answer to that, Kamiya-san. Please. "

"I'm not Mundus. Ask him."

https://twitter.com/PG_kamiya/status/746174522835894272

"Could Mundus destroy the Human World?"

"Could be."

https://twitter.com/PG_kamiya/status/746395066952908800

"So what I want to ask you is, "Mundus" Does he really create a true universe? Is he capable enough of-"

"Could be."

https://twitter.com/PG_kamiya/status/717740288244981760

"In dmc1 the battle between Dante and mundus in space, was Dante flying faster than the light in that battle?"

"Could be."

And finally...

https://twitter.com/PG_kamiya/status/757151357736394752

"Is Mundus Universe level, Mr. PG_kamiya?"

"Ask him."

If these don't suffice, I can show you twice as many. Accepting a one-word tweet over all of this just because you are needy for that 3-A Dante, when he only would tweet that to get people to shut up, is dishonesty at it's peak.

This is Hideki Kamiya's general stand towards VsDebating: He freaking hates it.

https://twitter.com/PG_kamiya/status/428762534837895168

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, but we should probably try to stick on topic regarding writing a general regulation.

 

[Lina_Shields]

Basically, all the points Matt said applies to the rule

• "When a statement from a character, guidebook, or even word of god contradicts what occurs in the series, they won't be used. For example, if an author says that a character from his work is incapable of shattering planets, even though it has destroyed galaxies on-screen, we will always go with the latter, rather than the former."

This only means that if said feat displayed directly contradicts what the author has stated, the displayed feat would take priority when assigning a tier for said character.

By the way...

How much time did the author likely put into the answer?

• This question is irrelevant if the feat shown to us does not contradict what the author's view that particular subject (The length of time the author spent formulating an answer should not matter in this case).

 

[Antvasima]

Well, offhanded very brief replies are considerably more unreliable than long explanations i.m.h.o.

 

[Thebluedash]

I think using twitter answers is fine... They are the creator's words, which is WoG...

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

@Lina

Not really. What we are discussing here is a basic explanation of the concept of Death of the Author, so that newbie users don't try coming here and treating an author tweet as absolute law. When they're not.

And the amount of time the author puts into the thought is generally very important. If he just reads a question on twitter and in 5 seconds answers "Yes.", why is that proof of anything? It's not, it's the equivalent of an opinion. If there's nothing to support it, it's meaningless.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with Matthew.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I think using twitter answers is fine... They are the creator's words, which is WoG...

We are explictely discussing that WoG is meaningless when unsupported by proof in the story. The story should stand on it's own. If the RWBY writers said that Weiss is Faster than Light on twitter, would you accept it?

Only reason someone would accept it would be to amp their favorite character, but there is nothing in the actual story that points to Weiss being Faster than Light, no feats nor credible statements.

 

[Sparda_20000000]

there is another universal feat in dmc also kamiya has answered the question more than once and his answer has been the same he has redirected them back to his original answer


Also if you look at the examples of kamiya trolling that Matt brought up they aren't asking for clarification in a cutscene they are asking him stupid questions

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

there are other universal feat in dmc also kamiya has answered the question more than once and his answer has been the same he has redirected them back to his original answer

Also if you look at the examples of kamiya trolling that Matt brought up they aren't asking for clarification in a cutscene they are asking him stupid questions

There aren't any Universal feats in DMC. He only answered it once and redirected it to the original answer, to shut people from asking him over and over.

Kamiya actually has a string of tweet-redirects of people asking him "Who would win between Dante and Bayonetta", and it goes back around 50 tweets to an original answer all the way back in 2009, where he says that "No man can defeat a woman". Should that be considered legitimate, or just a practical joke?

Stay on topic, anyway.

 

[Antvasima]

We should preferably focus on the main issue, not DMC.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Yes.

 

[Lina_Shields]

@Matt: Even if said tweet by the author matches what is shown to us on screen?

Anyways, there is already an agreement that if the author's statement contradicts what is actually displayed to us, the author's statement will not be considered.

As for the DMC universe issue, that is a separate issue altogether, and belongs in a different thread.

 

[Antvasima]

If it is a verification of what is shown on screen, I am personally fine with using it.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

@Matt: Even if said tweet by the author matches what is shown to us on screen?

Are you reffering to the DMC thing? Because it doesn't match. Mundus waves his hands and suddenly he and Dante are in outer space. Interpreting that Mundus created an entire universe is the biggest highball of the scene ever, which is an outlier in DMC regardless. It could simply be a 4-A sized dimension, or a dimensional transportation.

If this bothers you or anyone else, feel free to message me on my wall.

 

[Sparda_20000000]

Apologies didn't mean to derail


Would you like me to show you proof on your message wall Matt

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Feel free to message me.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

WoG should be used to clarify. Not to confirm the theories of others. Twitter, like I said before, is even more untrustworthy than a normal interview, which should in itself be taken with a grain of salt, as any random schmuck could ask a question rather than someone who's job it is to extract information.

Say Azzy was a professional journalist. He's interviewing Toby Fox, the creator of Undertale. One thing leads to another, and Toby says there's infinite timelines in the series.

I on the other hand, go on his twitter, and ask him if there's infinite timelines. He says that sounds about right.

Which one is more legitimate?