About unofficial author statements.

[Matthew_Schroeder]

The former is far more likely, as the answer if being given in a more serious environment when the author is putting more thought into his answer, and is clarifying various other things alongside it.

The later will likely be a one phrase answer that won't prove anything.

 

[Lina_Shields]

If a journalist is not involved (or unavailable) in the clarification of the feat in question, the next best option in that case would be to

• Judge said feat on what is shown on screen, and make a judgement on it.
• Use a twitter statement from the author, and see if it does not contradict with the feats shown by that character in question.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

But even that can be abused. Even with those specifications.

I'm gonna use myself as an example again, with Kirby and his creator Masahiro Sakurai as the subjects.

I'll ask him a bunch of questions, knowing he'll just say yes to shut me up.

Me: Can Kirby destroy the universe?

Sakurai: Yes.

Me: Can Kirby resist conceptual attacks?

Sakurai: That sounds right.

Me: Can Kirby adapt to any special ability, like transmutation, atomic destruction, causality manipulation, etc.?

Sakurai: Of course

None of that contradicts his showings.

 

[Lina_Shields]

If those statements do not contradict what Kirby is able to do in the games, those statements can be used then.

If they do contradict what is shown on screen, they cannot be used.

 

[Ryukama]

I think at a certain point one can't simply accept "it's not contradicted." If a statement is highly outlandish and not at all supported by the story itself, it shouldn't be used. Even if not directly gone against. Especially under the context of a VS debating fan trying to purposely extract a favorable statement out of the author, to which he gives a clearly unserious, quick and dismissive response. Or else you get stuff like Rick being rated literally infinitely higher than any of his other feats put together.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

No they cannot. Ever heard of burden of proof?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)

It is the affirmative statement that needs to be backed up by proof.

Since it's a concept founded in law, let me use an example with you.

Say I accuse you of stealing food from a supermarket. This statement doesn't contradict anything that you can or cannot do, or could have done. So does that make it true?

Of course not. To make it true I'd have to either bring eye-witness testimony to confirm that you were seen stealing, or even better, show security camera footage of you stealing.

If the Kirby author says that Kirby can Universe Bust, or destroy concepts, sure that may not be contradicted by other things... But there's still no proof behind it.

Saying that "Kirby can destroy a universe" is a strong affirmative statement, and requires strong evidence to back it up.

 

[Antvasima]

But an author could technically just say yes to any ability whatsoever that has not been explicitly contradicted on screen, but also not been at all shown or hinted at.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

But an author could technically just say yes to any ability whatsoever that has not been explicitly contradicted on screen, but also not been at all shown or hinted at.

Exactly, which is why these types of things tend to not be accepted. Such as the Rick & Morty Multiverse busting statement.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I agree with author's words to be taken as fact unless characters feats contradict his statements at least once if not twice or more times.

I disagree. A statement needs evidence to back it up, and this is no difference for WoG. As we pointed out, something may not contradict anything, but can't be accepted.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Look for other feats across the verse and find the consistency, obviously.

 

[Dino_Ranger_Black]

I believe we should also take the WoG into account not only in what is agreed or not agreed with what we ask but how legititmate the actually series itself for it to be supported. After all, there had been times we didn't take in some WoG statements due to the fact the series hasn't shown any level of feat or statement made prior.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

Frankly, I feel were too lose on our statement accepting anyway. Tbh, my gut tells me that started with 4-B Cell, but that's for another day, if at all.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Frankly, I feel were too lose on our statement accepting anyway. Tbh, my gut tells me that started with 4-B Cell, but that's for another day, if at all.

4-B Cell is at least repeated in every source out there from Databooks, Videogames, Anime, Episode Recaps, Narrator Statements, etc.

Twitter Statements are on a whole other level of flimsy.

 

[Lina_Shields]

Look for other feats across the verse and find the consistency, obviously.

We are still allowed to assign a tier based on the highest level of feat shown by that character. No reason to look for other feats if there is a single feat that determine his/her tiering (and is not contradicted w/a different feat).

As for Dino Ranger Black's comment, the comment in question only means that as long as the WoG fits into what the series has shown us in terms of feats, we can make it work.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, good clarifications of what has been shown in terms of feats should probably work.

 

[Lina_Shields]

The previous two rules that we have for what can/cannot be used regarding author's intent in terms of feats still suffice regarding this issue.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that it would be useful with an addition that we only accept statements that verify what has been shown in the story, if the statements are just brief replies to fan questions.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

It's all about being reasonable and unbiased, and being able to analyze the legitimacy of each author statement.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, that is true.

 

[Antvasima]

Are you willing to write a draft for a concise regulation text Matthew?

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I am, though what exactly needs to be covered in it. We discussed quite a lot in the thread.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, as I stated earlier, my main concerns are the following:

I 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.

Offhanded very brief replies are considerably more unreliable than long explanations.

If questioned by fans, an author could technically just say yes to any ability whatsoever that has not been explicitly contradicted on screen, but also not been at all shown or hinted at.

Are there any other important concerns that others think should be included?

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Trying to write a draft here:

"Author Statements are typically only accepted when they clarify what has been already shown or implied in the series itself, and are usually rejected if there is no evidence of their truth in the series. Even if there is nothing that technically contradicts the statement in the series, if there is nothing that supports it's legitimacy, it will be rejected

This specially applies to offhanded replies on social media, as they are more often than not vague and brief, and authors can technically just say "yes" to any question to silence fans from bothering them with it.

For an Author Statement to be accepted, it needs to be at least somewhat elaborate, and align with what's shown / implied in the work itself."

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the help. I am going to bed now, but will try to modify the text later.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

Personally, I think if asked by a fan, t should be disregarded altogether.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

@Cal

Not true, some authors are quite open and clarify themselves when asked.

Look at this tweet conversatio :

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

I should rephrase that. That was a simple question in that.

 

[Ryanmahaffe]

Yeah, when I think about Author or show worker statements that are unofficial, I don't usually take them as canon, Like Big Jim said he doesn't think the Discord manipulated Tirek in Season 4 finale holds much weight, it's not official and he said think. So I wouldn't say it's a theory smasher.

 

[Mister_Death]

In Inuyashaverse, Sesshomaru destroys a mountain in the manga. Another character said its a mountain, word of god said it was a mountain, but, it was deemed much less because it "didnt look" like a mountain.

 

[Lina_Shields]

@Cal

Not true, some authors are quite open and clarify themselves when asked.

Look at this tweet conversatio :

In that Twitter statement, the author just tells the audience to read a certain book, and in the second twitter statement, the author answers with a rather vague answer saying something about "making gods for ourselves, in our own image". The answers to both of those Twitter questions attempt to re-direct the question in a different direction instead of actually answering the question being asked here.

Anyways, from the draft description:

Matthew Schroeder wrote
"Author Statements are typically only accepted when they clarify what has been already shown or implied in the series itself, and are usually rejected if there is no evidence of their truth in the series. Even if there is nothing that technically contradicts the statement in the series, if there is nothing that supports it's legitimacy, it will be rejected
This specially applies to offhanded replies on social media, as they are more often than not vague and brief, and authors can technically just say "yes" to any question to silence fans from bothering them with it.

For an Author Statement to be accepted, it needs to be at least somewhat elaborate, and align with what's shown / implied in the work itself."

There is an issue with the bolded part above. If the author provides an answer to a Twitter question that was asked to clarify what exactly happened in that scenario, and said answer has evidence of truth of what is actually shown within the series itself, why reject that statement?

For example, here. While the answer in question is quite vague, Kamiya also clearly answers the question that creation stars and constellations in that feat would be akin to creating a universe. Thus, the draft guide should be written as...

Draft
Author statements will only be accepted when their statements clarify what has been shown in the series itself, and are rejected when said statements contradict what is shown to the audience in that series. The statement in question will also be rejected if there is no evidence shown from that particular series, as said statement would still be considered without base due to lack of evidence shown to the audience.

 

[Thebluedash]

Lina seems to make sense here.

 

[Antvasima]

I also think that Lina's draft version seems concise and useful.

 

[Dino_Ranger_Black]

I agree with Lina's draft as well since it seems to resolve the issue in mind.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Kamiya really doesn't answer anything in your example. He just says one word and nothing else. No clarification nor any engagement with the person who made the question. And I already pointed out why his word on twitter is worth nothing.

Meanwhile, Mike Carey actually explains the meaning behind the External Forces in Lucifer, pointing out to another issue where it had been clarified, and confirming his intent. There is nothing about "Redirecting the question instead of answering". Carey actually provided a solid explanation of his series' cosmology, but I can understand that it may be confusing for someone who hasn't read it.

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

Honestly, DMC seems to be a huge driving force for this as a whole. As such we should discuss that elsewhere instead of here, as this thread is more about creating a new regulation. Not whether Kamiya's twitter statement should be allowed.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

In any case.

"Author statements will only be accepted when their statements clarify what has been shown in the series itself, and are rejected when said statements contradict what is shown to the audience in that series. The statement in question will also be rejected if there is no evidence shown from that particular series, as said statement would still be considered without base due to lack of evidence shown to the audience."

This is generally fine, but it could still be improved upon with an additional phrase making it clear that brief answers on social media are more often than not discredited entirely.

 

[Lina_Shields]

Kamiya really doesn't answer anything in your example. And I already pointed out why his word on twitter is worth nothing.

He already answered a question from a fellow user on his Twitter before other users kept asking different questions, which caused him to spew out "troll" answers.

Also, pointing out to someone to read a different issue is not a justification, as the main question that the audience tried to ask has not actually been answered.

Whether said answers are brief or not, if said answer does not clearly answer the question asked by the audience, the answer should be disregarded entirely.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

@Lina

Actually, his first answer to the "Can Mundus destroy the universe" was a troll answer.

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

99% of the stuff Kamiya answers are trolls, and he has already made his opinion of VsDebating clear. He hates it and finds it stupid.

Meanwhile Carey pointed out to the issue in which the "External Forces" are clarified, and when the user returned after having read it, he confirmed the user's interpretation to be correct. THAT is an actual answer.

If you think Carey didn't answer anything, you are surely mistaken. I don't know how you got to the conclusion that he didn't answer a thing.

 

[Antvasima]

This is generally fine, but it could still be improved upon with an additional phrase making it clear that brief answers on social media are more often than not discredited entirely.

Can you make an appropriate addition?

 

[Lina_Shields]

@Matt: And how do you know that if it was a troll answer or not? Kamiya answered that question clearly the first time, and then people started to bombard him with more question.

Anyways, brief answers are still answers if those answers do not go against what is shown towards the audience. I see no reason to reject it otherwise unless those answers go against what is shown on screen.