• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

An issue with Abstract Existence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Antvasima said:
It is probably good if you ask Wokistan to take a look at properly revising the Abstract Existence page, if it is better to do so.
Click to expand...
Has anybody done this yet?
 
Antvasima said:
Are any staff members willing to help out with cleanup work based on the list that he wrote?
Click to expand...
Has this work been finished?
 
Okay. Thanks.
 
Thank you very much for helping out. I appreciate it.
 
Okay. Thanks again.
 
What is left to do here?
 
i'd still like to discuss conceptual manipulation, p-forms and j-archetypes since we're done here. it's not clear what makes these type 2 or 1. Ultima feels the pages are outdated
 
Perhaps just writing a section on the Editing Rules about anyone feeling free to remove type 3 Abstract Existence from profiles, as we all know, the list I did only covered the most prominent pages on the site for the most part, respectively.

After all, a similar note regarding Vs. threads from other websites is a thing already, so this should be fine.
 
Bobsican said:
Perhaps just writing a section on the Editing Rules about anyone feeling free to remove type 3 Abstract Existence from profiles, as we all know, the list I did only covered the most prominent pages on the site for the most part, respectively.
After all, a similar note regarding Vs. threads from other websites is a thing already, so this should be fine.
Click to expand...
makes enough sense
 
XSOULOFCINDERX said:
What about Pokemon? Giratina, Dialga and Palkia have type 3.
Click to expand...
IIRC they just got it removed already, make a separate CRT for it if they can qualify for something else.
 
Perhaps it just got forgotten if that's the case, but yeah, it should have it removed soon.
 
In that case the footnote should be placed in the Abstract Existence page for the sake of convenience.
 
That seems fine, but because of how the other one that's in the Editing Rules already places a standard respectively, I think it should belong more in the Editing Rules, but I'm not sure as it being on the AE page works too.
 
People will not notice it in the right/useful context if we place it in the editing rules.
 
My interpretation of the page:

Type 1. The real thing is immaterial. Any bodies are basically... An Avatar, Smurf, or otherwise projection/emanation of an abstracta. Like what Darkseid does? I think? Where he makes bodies but his real self is some higher dimensional thing.

Type 2. You are reliant on a concept's existence for immortality. You are less a complete and entire incarnation of that concept as a whole and more of a fraction or a person/life form spawned from that concept.

Type 3. You're a flesh and blood incarnation of the concept, rather than being an intangible idea. Like Galactus or some religious characters that are incarnations that can bleed and die.

Is this what you're thinking, Ant? Cause I agree somewhat. You can be one who has conceptual existence without being a concept physically, or having immortality reliant on it. You're just... not an idea tangibly.
 
Wait, if that's the case, wouldn't Dialga, Palkia and Giratina apply to type 1 or 2 since they are literally the concept of Time, Space and Antimatter?
 
Yeah, yeah, the main reason type 3 got nuked is because the page is of Abstract Existence, not Abstract Relationship, which falls in Conceptual Manipulation instead if anything.

Type 3 already got nuked and now the only thing left is to leave a mark fo the future so pages that still have it get it removed.

@TGoP that seems like a quite great draft.
 
Yeah, Abstract Existence sounds like a Misnomer, but if your entire body is a product of a concept, idea, or god making you a conduit or otherwise point of influence for itself, i'd say that's tied to existence right there. Just because it got nuked doesn't mean we can't rewrite it like ant wanted, and I don't see anything on Concept Manip describing what I did. So we should probably add a note to Concept Manip stating that being an incarnation of a concept doesn't make you an abstract existence but is a form of concept Manip tied to your existence, and having this night grant limited concept Manip.

I'm fine with whatever, I just want to clarify that what ant said isn't invalid.
 
Like, type 3 is being the avatar used by type 1 itself almost. Some avatars are just flesh and blood beings that you can kill with your fists, but are nonetheless still incarnations of a concept. It doesn't really seem to be applicable in combat unless that character is therefore granted powers, but that's not grounds for refusing to index it. We need something for "being an avatar/smurf" anyway, and type 3 fits, yeah?
 
So, should I make a thread concerning "Avatar Existence"? For characters that are embodiments of shit, or are we tryna revive type 3 to save the trouble using this reworded variation.
 
It's too late to revive it, another thread for a new thing to replace it (with a better wording and all) seems better.
 
The God Of Procrastination said:
Note: Formerly, there was a type 3 of this power, which, after some discussion, was removed. If you see a profile which still has it listed, kindly remove it or ask a member of staff to do it for you.
Click to expand...
@All staff members

Is it fine if I add this at the bottom of the Abstract Existence page?
 
The only thing missing on the note may be linking to this thread fo referencial purposes, but outside of that it seems fine to me.

As usual more input is needed.
 
We should not link to forum threads in our regular wiki pages unless there is an extremely good reason for it.
 
I guess Vs. threads are better the

Okay, in that case it should be fine as it is, but again, as usual, more input is needed on it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LightSoul8
  • Locked
Dreamworks Death Downgrade
Replies
12
Views
1K
Accelerated_Evolution
Accelerated_Evolution
God243
Abstract existence type 2 removal
Replies
12
Views
2K
Hixkaryana
Hixkaryana
Quintessence_PE
  • Locked
YanSen ae type 1
Replies
19
Views
1K
Quintessence_PE
Quintessence_PE
Eneseditzm0
Aku Abstract Existence
2
Replies
59
Views
3K
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
God243
Abstract existence type 2 removal
Replies
32
Views
3K
Mr. Bambu
Mr. Bambu
Back
Top