Sigurd Snake in The Eye said:
Referencing our rules on
Statements and
Inconsistency isn't an appeal to tradition any more than a prosecutor consulting a list of laws to convict someone is. If my claim was that "we've always disregarded statements, your point is wrong as a result", you might have had a point there.
Sigurd Snake in The Eye said:
You're essentially saying if i'm understanding correctly, "who cares about consistently I only care about what I can see regardless of everything".
Either you're not understanding correctly or you're making a very simplified strawman of my post. I said that what is seen is of higher value than what is said when evaluating a feat, not that I don't care about consistency or that 'I only care about what I see'. I have also not advocated for either method specifically as of yet; I'm still analyzing both by questioning them.
To speak of consistency, a 'consistent' statement that is consistently contradicted by what is shown isn't consistent. Like a statement saying a man can level a building when they repeatedly shown strain breaking a wall. If the case was "the size we get from scaling and images is inconsistent but it's matched up with the statements once out of whatever many times"; there would be a reasonable case to take the statements. But if you're telling me there is a
complete dissonance between the statements and the visuals, then the feat becomes unreliable to evaluate to begin with. You're tossing out half the equation either way.
Sigurd Snake in The Eye said:
Edit - Okay then, God Tier and High Tier go down to 7-A since their AP calcs depend on Seireitei's size.
I'm not entirely sure why me disagreeing with some of your points turns around the whole revision. I'm completely out of the loop on Bleach, and was asked to comment here by you; I'm just going off of what I can read on this thread.
MetalGearRaiden :
i have a better example:wrote imagine a building said:
Why is inconsistent visual depictions suddenly better to use over consistent descriptions? What makes the visuals suddenly more "authentic/accurate" with all their contradictions over what characters and author says?
Not necessarily better to use, but if the 'inconsistent visual depictions' consistently contradict the statements then the statements aren't exactly reliable either.